IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11715 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Lal …….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. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Chharol, Sadar Block, District Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the office of Zila Parishad, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that he has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that representation filed by the petitioner, citing therein medical grounds has not been considered till date. Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse representation (Annexure P-4), states that since petitioner is suffering from serious medical ailments, he is required to be posted near AIIMS, Bilaspur. He states that though at first instance, petitioner approached respondents by way of representation, but till date same has not been decided. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, 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. He further states representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but certainly taking note of medical documents adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner is suffering from serious medical ailments, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. 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 Transfer Policy. Till the next date of hearing, petitioner shall not be relieved, pursuant to transfer order dated 05.06.2025, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 22, 2025 (Sunil)