2025:HHC:25231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 12357/2025 Decided on: 30.7.2025 Brij Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B. C. Verma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Dy. A.G. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) The petitioner herein, who is presently working as Veterinary Pharmacist in Veterinary Dispensary, Dhuni Panjail, District Bilaspur, H.P., is aggrieved of the order dated 22.7.2025, whereby he has been transferred to Veterinary Dispensary Jiskun (Dodra Kwar),District Shimla against vacant post. 2 The precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, is that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the transfer policy as the petitioner 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting. It is further averred at the behest of the petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner is 60% disabled and as such it would be difficult for the petitioner to take care of her in the event of his transfer to Dodra Kwar, which is a hard and difficult area. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states states that the petitioner has almost completed his normal tenure of service at the present place of posting and he has not served in hard/ tribal area in his service career and as such, 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 the petitioner has been working at the present place of posting since April 2023, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate that the petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of service. However, given the fact that the daughter of the petitioner is 60% disabled coupled with the fact that the sub para 5.6 of the office memorandum, 3 dated 17.9.2015(Annexure P-5) talks about the concession to officials having differently abled dependents, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, the 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 the aforesaid office memorandum. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Till date the representation is not decided, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. (Sandeep Sharma) 30.7.2025 Judge (pankaj)