IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11607 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Ganesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 Drawing Master at GHS Kelti u/c GSSS Gharwachthach, District Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GHS Ghainidhar u/c GSSS Bagachanogi, District Mandi. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that at no point of time, petitioner made request for his transfer from present place of posting to transferred station and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to deny TTA/joining time. He further states that though petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present station, but 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 still post is lying vacant at afore station and as such, respondent- department may consider re-transferring him to that station. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned order. He states that otherwise also, present petition is not maintainable because petitioner has already joined the transferred station. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, coupled with the fact that he has already joined the transferred station, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner herein has been denied TTA/joining time, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, for release of TTA/joining, if admissible, which in- turn shall be decided by the authority concerned, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant 3 order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)