IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13011 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) in GMS Jol u/c GSSS Dangar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 6.8.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GMS Dho u/c GHS Kanjian District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, which is stated to be at a distance of 160 kms from present place of posting. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy because petitioner has not been - 2 - permitted to complete normal tenure at present place of posting. Mr. Bhushan, further states that bare perusal of impugned transfer order itself suggests that entire exercise has been done to protect one Sh. Deshraj TGT (Arts), who was earlier transferred and adjusted vide order dated 5.7.2025 at GHS Dho, u/c GHS Kanjian District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh vice Smt. Paramjeet TGT (Arts), but since private respondent failed to join, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP and this Court directed the respondents to consider and decide representation in that case on medical grounds, petitioner herein for no fault of him came to be transferred to a distant place. 3. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting because he has remained posted within the radius of 30 kms from present place of posting since 2006 and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. He states that impugned transfer order otherwise has been passed on the basis of direction passed by this Court in CWP No. 10039 of 2025, whereby direction was issued to the - 3 - respondents to consider representation of the petitioner namely Deshraj. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting. Though petitioner may not have completed minimum tenure of posting at GMS Jol, but certainly, he remained posted in and around afore station for more than 19 years. If it is so, respondents rightly by clubbing his previous stay, proceeded to conclude that he has already completed normal tenure of posting. Since clubbing has been held to be permissible by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 6.6.2025 passed in CWP No. 2734 of 2024, titled as Monika Katna v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from present place of posting, cannot be held to be bad, rather same deserves to be upheld. However, having taken note of the medical condition as well as adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as have been detailed in the representation (Annexure P-2), this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation sympathically, expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, - 4 - 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 the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as medical condition. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge