IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12225 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tapender Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Superintendent Gr-I at Govt. Degree College Haripurdhar, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on medical grounds. 2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is 60% permanently disabled and as such, it may not be possible for him to continue to work in hard area i.e. Haripurdhar. 3. Though petitioner has been working in afore station for more than eight months, but during this period, he has faced so many - 2 - problems and as such, made a representation to the respondents to transfer him to one of the stations of choice on medical grounds. 4. Besides above, it is also averred in the petition that since petitioner is going to retire within 1 ½ years coupled with the fact that his mother, who is 80 years old, is a cancer patient, he is required to be given station of choice. 5. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that Haripurdhar is not a hard station because for reaching afore station, employee concerned is not required to walk on foot, however, such prayer of him appears to be totally contrary to the notification issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein Haripurdhar has been declared to be hard/difficult area. Moreover, factum with regard to petitioner’s having 60% permanently disability is not disputed. If it is so, he otherwise in terms of clause 5.5 of the transfer policy deserves to be adjusted at some convenient station. 6. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that petitioner is due to retire within 1 ½ years. If it is so, he is also required to be provided convenient place in terms clause 6 of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee nearing retirement to seek transfer/adjustment to one of the stations of choice. - 3 - 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. 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 a speaking order taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as detailed herein above. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge