IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11393 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mahesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Govt. High School Chowkari u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Rajwari, District Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore School to Government Senior Secondary School, Kalwari, District Kullu. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for the reason that petitioner has 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 not been able to complete his normal tenure of posting and impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of D.O. note issued by Ex-MLA of the area concerned i.e. respondent No.7. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has almost completed normal tenure of posting at present station, if it is so, factum of D.O. note issued by respondent No.7 may not be of much relevance. Moreover, impugned transfer order nowhere suggests that same has been issued on the basis of D.O. note issued by respondent No.7. However, having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is also Government employee and at present she is working at Sundernagar, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for certain concession to employees, whose spouse is also 3 in Government service, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Clause 5.4 of the Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station, on the ground of couple case. Since petitioner’s mother is also unwell, authority concerned shall also take note of such fact while deciding the representation filed by the petitioner. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)