IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11567 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non-Medical) at RMCM GMSSS Sullah, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to GSSS Seikothi, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but taking note of fact that petitioner has already served in hard/tribal area, he cannot be sent to hard area again. 3. It has been averred in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical) at GMS Soi-Dhar u/c GSSS Dalash, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area and as such, he should not have been posted to hard area again. 4. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, 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, which otherwise has been passed in terms of order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.8934 of 2025 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. He states that since Sanjeev Kumar was directed to be posted in a soft area and petitioner herein had already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, respondents have not committed any illegality, while transferring the petitioner from present place of posting. 3 5. True it is, rather an admitted fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already served in a hard area during his initial appointment i.e. Soi-dhar, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, he could not have been transferred again to GSSS Seikothi, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. No doubt, vide order dated 28.05.2025, this Court had directed competent authority to consider and decide the representation filed by Sanjeev Kumar (TGT) (Non-Medical), but while doing so, competent authority is expected to ascertain that person, against whom above Sanjeev Kumar was being accommodated, was not again posted to a hard or tribal area, rather taking note of the fact that petitioner herein has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, he could have been transferred to other soft area. 6. Repeatedly, this Court has advised the State Government to ensure that such of the employees, who have never served hard/tribal area, are transferred to hard/tribal area so as to maintain a fair and balanced distribution of hard postings among all employees. However, it has come to the notice that only such employees, who have no political influence in Government, are being sent to hard/tribal area, whereas persons, who have remained posted 4 at one station for four years, are not being transferred, which act of Government adversely reflect upon the system. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without interfering in the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days for his adjustment at a convenient station/place, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 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 Transfer Policy, which certainly provides certain concessions to employee, who has already served hard/tribal area. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Sunil)