2025:HHC:14255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 192 of 2023 Decided on: 16th May, 2025 ________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ....Appellant. Versus State of H.P and others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal has arisen out of judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4685 of 2023 filed by the present appellant, whereby the learned Single Judge chosen not to interfere in the transfer order dated 20.07.2023, while noticing that the petitioner had completed one year seven months’ at the present place of posting, which was at Bilaspur. The transfer as such, had been made to Keylong, Lahul and Spiti, which is subject matter of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 challenge. 2. Initially, when the appeal came up on 19.10.2023, the Coordinate Bench as such, was prima facie of the opinion that the transfer as such was punitive and therefore the stand of the respondents could not be accepted and stayed the transfer order. It is not disputed that the stay was also granted by the learned Single Judge. 3. On an application for early hearing having been filed by the State, the matter came up on 09.01.2025 and we noticed as under:- “CMP No.26215 of 2024 This application has been filed for early hearing of appeal. This is a conceded position that the respondent-writ petitioner has completed three years at Bilaspur and the issue is regarding the transfer order, which was apparently punitive and led to the passing of interim order by the Coordinate Bench. We are of the considered opinion that the life of the litigation has run out of its currency. Resultantly, it is open for the State to pass fresh transfer order, however, we expect that the State will not pass a punitive transfer order as earlier done. Let the proposed transfer order be placed on record and the same shall be given effect only after the next date of hearing. 3 List on 6th March, 2025” In pursuance of the same, the State has now placed on record the order dated 05.03.2025, whereby there was a proposal as such, to transfer the petitioner to the District Treasury Office, Reckongpeo. Counsel for the appellant has objected as such that the transfer again is punitive in nature and stated that the place of posting as such is punitive and against the tone and tenor of the order passed by the Court on 09.01.2025. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was initially posted at Bilaspur on 10.12.2021 and in such circumstances we had observed on an earlier occasion also that he has completed his normal tenure. If one has to look at the proposed transfer the petitioner is being swapped with the Officer at Reckongpeo and another Officer as such was transferred from Solan to the District Treasury Office, Keylong against vacant post. 5. Thus apparently, the transfer as such, is in public interest and administration of the Department, by Principal Secretary, Finance, against whom there are no allegations of mala fides and the said Officer has not been impleaded in his private capacity. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur had been impleaded at the first instance only in appeal and never in the Writ petition. 4 6. In such circumstances, the petitioner having served at Bilaspur for a considerable period, therefore we feel that the petitioner had already earned the fruits of litigation and the interim order having been passed, cannot obviously continue in perpetuity keeping in view of settled principle that the Writ Court could not as such interfere in the transfer orders until they are mala fides or arbitrary. 7. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Appeal as having been rendered infructuous. It is expected that since enquiry proceedings were initiated against the present appellant, the same would be concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 16th May, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge