IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12869 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Brahm Dass ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) in GSSS Rajwari, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 5.8.2025 passed by Director of School Education in purported compliance of order dated 9.7.2025, passed in CWP No. 9387 of 2025, titled as Jitender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider prayer of afore petitioner to adjust him at a convenient place on account of adverse family circumstances. Respondents having considered representation filed by above named person–Jitender Kumar, adjusted him at Government Senior Secondary School Rajwari, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh vice petitioner by clubbing his previous posting. In - 2 - the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but it is averred by the petitioner that on account of adverse family circumstances, it may not be possible for the petitioner to join at Government Senior Secondary School Panjalag, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which is at a distance of 135 kms from his native place. Since father of the petitioner is old aged person and there is none to take care of him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to either quash the impugned order dated 5.8.2025 or direct the respondents to adjust him a convenient place in terms of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek adjustment at a convenient place, on account of adverse family circumstances. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents/State, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that impugned transfer order has been passed pursuant to directions issued by this Court in Jitender Kumar (supra), no action of the respondents can be said to be in violation of transfer policy. - 3 - 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with afore impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of adverse family circumstances as has been apprised to this court during proceedings of the case, this court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days to the competent authority for his posting at convenient place, which in turn shall decide the same within ten days, taking note of his adverse family circumstances. 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. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge