IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11899 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh Lata …….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. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 17.07.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner, in terms of order dated 30.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 9075 of 2025, titled as Mukesh Lata Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, has been rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct the respondents to transfer 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the petitioner from hard/tribal area to soft area on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure in hard/tribal area. 2. This Court, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure in hard/tribal area, vide order dated 30.05.2025, disposed of CWP No. 9075 of 2025, thereby issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Though in terms of afore order passed by this Court, respondents by way of impugned order dated 17.07.2025 considered the representation of the petitioner, but rejected the same on the ground that 35 posts of LTs are lying vacant and at present, the student enrollment at Government Senior Secondary School Badgran, District Chamba is 86, which falls in tribal area. In nutshell, petitioner has not been transferred, despite his having completed normal tenure on the ground that there is none to substitute him. 3. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, attempted to argue that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned order dated 17.07.2025 because in the event of transfer of the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School Badgran, Education Block Bharmour, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, to 3 one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, studies of 86 students would suffer, but he was unable to dispute that in terms of transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which enables an employee to seek transfer after his/her having completed normal tenure i.e. two winters and three summers in hard/tribal area, is entitled to be posted in soft area or one of the stations of his choice. 4. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already served for more than three years in Government Senior Secondary School Badgran, Education Block Bharmour, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that this Court, while passing order dated 30.052025 in CWP No. 9075 of 2025, had directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein specific provision has been made to transfer the employee from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is a result of non-application of mind. Had concerned authority, while passing impugned order, bothered to look into the transfer Policy as well as observations made by this Court in earlier order passed in CWP No. 9075, it would not have issued impugned order 4 dated 17.07.2025, which otherwise appears to be in complete contradiction of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since the petitioner has already completed normal tenure in hard/tribal area, ground sought to be raised by the petitioner with regard to loss of studies of 86 students may not be of much relevance, rather for that purpose, respondents should have transferred teacher, who has never served hard/tribal area, this Court has repeatedly advised the State Government to ensure that each and every employee of Government is posted in a hard/tribal area, however only such of the employees, who have no political backing, are being sent to hard/tribal area. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 17.07.2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the Director Elementary Education to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as provision contained in the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or one of the stations of choice after his/her having completed normal tenure in hard/tribal area. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts 5 that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 24, 2025 (Sunil)