2025:HHC:23413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.443 of 2025 Decided on: 18.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Kali Ram ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 21.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.9985 of 2025, titled Kali Ram versus State of H.P. and Others, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed and the transfer order of appellant dated 19.06.2025 [Annexure P-4], who is working as driver in the office of General Manager, District industries Centre, Solan to office of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nahan, was upheld. 2. Learned Single Judge while going through the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:23413 - 2 - background of the case, noticed that the petitioner had been posted at Solan since the year 2019 as a Driver on daily wage basis and had thus completed six years of service at the particular station, however, now he has been transferred inter se private respondent No.4. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that the regularization was done only in the year 2023 and the transfer policy, as such, would be applicable on a regular employee only. 3. We are of the considered opinion that it is not for the writ court, as such, to adjudicate the issue of transfer as it pertains to the exigencies of situation of the department as to how they require the services of an employee to be utilized. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that there is no mala fide or arbitrariness that the transfer has been done by any official on that account and keeping in view the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not feel that any ground is made out to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. Reference can be made to the judgment of Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (2) RSJ 604 that violation of statutory provision and mala 2025:HHC:23413 - 3 - fide can only give jurisdiction, which is not the case herein. 4. Clause-3 of the order of regularization dated 03.11.2023 [Annexure P-2] would go on to show that the employee, as such, has an obligation to serve in any part of Himachal Pradesh. 5. In these circumstances, no case is made out and the appeal is dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 18, 2025 [Shivender/Bhardwaj]