Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22983 (HP)

SHYAM LAL v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CWP/13135/2025 · 2025-08-14

Sandeep Sharma

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13135 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shyam Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as CHT at GPS Sarsoo, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on medical grounds. 2. It has been averred in the reply that since the petitioner is suffering from epilepsy and his present place of posting is more than 82 kilometers away from his native place, he needs to be transferred to a station, where other family members can take care of him. 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, fairly states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but representation filed by the petitioner for his transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with Transfer Policy. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, 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 observations made hereinabove as well as 2 Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3