IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13143 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Kaushal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, 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 RTO at Regional Transport Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, is aggrieved by order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Regional Transport Office (Flying Squad) Kullu, District Kullu, against vacant post. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh because petitioner has only ten months’ for retirement and as per Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee, who is having less than two years to retire, is required to be posted at one of the stations of his choice. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed on record instructions dated 18.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Additional Chief Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Chauhan, states that no benefit, in terms of Clause 5.5 of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, can be extended to the petitioner on account of his being Class-I Officer. He further states that petitioner has been transferred to District Kullu, which is not far away from District Bilaspur. Moreover, petitioner has been assigned duly in Flying Squad, meaning thereby, he will not be posted at District Kullu, rather he will keep on travelling between District Kullu and District Bilaspur for checking the vehicles. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1863 of 2018, titled as Rattan Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Others, states that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh also applies to Class-I & Class-II officers, who are expected to remain posted for the normal tenure of two years or so, 2 save and except where there exist administrative grounds, exigency or public interest demanding their premature transfer. He further states that impugned transfer nowhere suggests any public interest. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 129 of 2025, titled as Piar Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wherein similar facts and circumstances, this Court interferred with the transfer of an employee, who at relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) at Public Works Department, Sub Division Bhawarna, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 5. Having carefully perused judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Rattan Chand (supra), this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Before considering the application of aforesaid judgment in the case at hand, relevant para of the aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as under:- “The petitioner is working as a Principal in Government Senior Secondary School. He was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Alampur, District Kangra, H.P in September 2017. After a few months i.e. on 24th May, 2018, he was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School(Girl) at Anni, District Kullu. He challenged that transfer order before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. His Original Application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation which was directed to be considered and disposed of. Pursuant to order dated 29th May, 2018 of the Tribunal, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh passed the order dated 19th July, 2018, according to which 3 the petitioner being a Class-I Gazetted Officer “can be transferred to any where in the State in exigency of the service on administrative grounds…...”. In our considered view, order dated 19th July, 2018 of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh does not meet with the requirement of principles of fair and just play. Possessing power to transfer Class-I Gazetted Officer is one thing and the manner in which such power is exercised is altogether different. Every official, whether class-IV or Class-I, is expected to remain posted for an ordinary tenure of three years or so save where there exist administrative grounds, exigency or public interest demanding his premature transfer. No such reasons find mention in the order of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to re-consider the petitioner’s request sympathetically for his posting preferably against a vacant post in District Kangra or at a place which is near to his home town. In case, the petitioner is required to be posted at a place which is already occupied by an incumbent, such incumbent should also not be transferred prematurely. In other words, uniform policy pattern be adopted as far as possible in the matter of administrative transfers. An appropriate decision be taken within two weeks.” 6. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, if read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh also applies to Class-I & Class-II officers. Since it has been specifically provided in the Transfer Policy that an employee nearing retirement shall not be transferred, rather may be given station of his choice, coupled with the fact that petitioner has only ten months to retire, there appears to be no reason for his 4 transfer from District Bilaspur to District Kullu, which is at a distance of 100 Kms. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned transfer order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) and rejection order dated 16.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue at present place of posting till his retirement. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 5