IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12450 of 2025 Decided on: 31st July, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Janga ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. P.K.Verma, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Considering the grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, notice of this petition is not required to be issued to respondent No.3. Reply is also not required from respondents No.1 and 2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner is serving as Veterinary Officer in VH Thanakalan, District Una. Under notification dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), he has been transferred to VH Nigulseri, District Kinnaur, H.P. vice respondent No.3. 3. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that he is physically challenged person suffering from 42% locomotor disability and thus entitled to concession of Clause 5.3 of the Transfer Policy, which states that employee suffering from 60% or higher disability, should be adjusted at stations of choice/convenient stations. 4. Petition also gives out incumbency of the petitioner. The incumbency position reflects that ever-since petitioner’s first appointment on 07.02.2005, he has remained posted only in District Una that too at stations within short distances. Clause 5.3 of the Transfer Policy invoked by the petitioner, cannot be construed to mean that petitioner, belonging to State cadre, cannot be transferred out side District Una. The respondents-State though is required to make an endeavour for posting persons suffering from - 3 - disabilities at stations of their choice or convenient places on road sides where bus services are available and to see that no undue hardships are caused to physically challenged people, but that would not mean that a physically challenged person cannot be transferred at all. In view of admitted accommodation of the petitioner in District Una for past about 20 years, petitioner cannot claim that he has not been given benefit of Clause 5.3 of the Transfer Policy by the respondents. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of petitioner’s physical disability, he be permitted to make a representation to the respondents for his suitable adjustment whereafter, respondent/competent be directed to consider the same in accordance with law. This proposal is not objected to by learned Deputy Advocate General. 5. In view of above, without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.3 to VH Thanakalan, District Una, under notification dated 28.07.2025, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make comprehensive representation to the respondents - 4 - /Competent Authority for suitable adjustment, within a period of three days from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and transfer policy, within a further period of ten days by passing order, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred place. This limited protection shall stand vacated in case petitioner does not prefer representation within the allotted time. Needless to clarify that respondent No.3 shall be permitted to join at VH Thanakalan, District Una. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 31, 2025 R.Atal