IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13415 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sushil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, is aggrieved of order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore office to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Salooni, District Chamba, against vacancy. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, but challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground that wife of the petitioner is suffering from Cancer and at present, she is under treatment from PGIMER and Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Chandigarh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned transfer order, however, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for his adjustment at convenient station, on account of illness of his wife, shall be considered in accordance with law, expeditiously. 4. True it is that petitioner has been working as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, since 2016, as such, he cannot have any grouse with regard to his transfer from the present station, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner’s wife has been suffering from Stage-IV Cancer and she is under treatment from PGIMER and Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Chandigarh, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, 3 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 thereupon, taking note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is seriously ill and she requires immediate medical attention. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant judgment, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi) RAJEEV RATURI Digitally signed by RAJEEV RATURI Date: 2025.08.21 17:02:03 +0530