IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12271 of 2025 Date of Decision:29.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is a driver in HRTC, Bilaspur, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P- 1), whereby he has been transferred from the Office of HRTC, Bilaspur to the office of HRTC, Rampur. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner has already served in Keylong for more than seven years, he could not have been again transferred to Rampur. He states that petitioner is due to retire within a period of two years and two months and as such, ought not have been transferred , rather ought to have been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 given station of his choice in terms of transfer policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He further states that on account of various ailments suffered by the petitioner, it may not be possible for him to go to Rampur. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate. He states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Rampur is not a hard station, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at Bilaspur, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is left with two years of service and transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been further adopted by the respondent- Corporation, clearly provides that an employee with less than two years of service shall not be transferred, rather shall be provided the station of choice, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the 3 competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of his being on the verge of retirement as well as on medical grounds, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks, taking note of transfer policy. 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 appropriate order. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner within period of one week, is not decided by the competent authority, impugned transfer order shall remain stayed, if petitioner already not relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29,2025 (shankar)