IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11291 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Deputy Divisional Manager (Technical), is aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from Una unit to Nalagarh unit. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy, because taking note fact that petitioner is left with less than nine months to retire, he should not have been transferred. Admittedly, Transfer 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Policy promulgated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh certainly enables an employee, who is nearing retirement, to seek transfer/adjustment at one of the stations of his choice, but ignoring such fact petitioner has been transferred to a far flung area. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Deepak Sharma, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. However, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner with regard to adjustment at a convenient station, on account of his nearing retirement, shall be considered in terms of Transfer Policy. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been adopted by the respondents/HRTC, clearly provides that an employee having less than two years service shall not be transferred or shall be posted at a station of his choice, this Court, without going into the merits of the 3 case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within two days for cancellation/adjustment at a convenient station, which shall be decided within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 5. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of relevant provisions contained in Transfer Policy, which certainly provides certain concession to employee nearing retirement as has been discussed hereinabove. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, impugned transfer order dated 10.07.2025 shall remain stayed qua petitioner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 15, 2025 (Sunil)