IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12433 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Prantap Sharma, 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, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the office of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Nadaun Division, is aggrieved of order dated 26.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Sarkaghat Division, vice Mr. Atul Thakur i.e. private-respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of the Transfer Policy for the reason that petitioner is left with only 11 months of service and as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 such, could not have been transferred to far-flung area, rather, ought to have been given station of his choice. Besides above, it has been averred in the petition that father of the petitioner is 87 years old and in the event of his being transferred from Nadaun Division to Sarkaghat Division, there would be none to take care of him. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, he cannot have any grouse with regard to his transfer, however, he fairly states that in the event of representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, on account of his nearing retirement, same shall be considered expeditiously, in terms of provisions contained in the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. True it is that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at Nadaun, but once it is not in dispute that he is about to retire within a period of 11 months, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, clearly provides that employee, having less than two years to retire, shall be posted at a convenient station, this Court, without going into 3 the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of two days’ to the competent authority, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week, in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee, nearing retirement, to seek transfer to a convenient station. Ordered accordingly. Till the time, representation, if filed within the time stipulated by this Court, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. While doing the needful, respondents may also take note of the fact that private-respondent No.3-Mr. Atul Thakur, who is only 32 years old, can be made to wait for another 11 months for his transfer, if any, to Nadaun. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 31, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)