IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13355 of 2025 Date of Decision:20.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yashpal Singh Sandhu …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Sub Inspector/CTS at Police Training College Daroh, is aggrieved of order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to CTS Head Quarter, Workshop, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to impugned transfer order on the ground that he is the sole care taker of his disabled wife. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while issuing impugned transfer order. He further states that petitioner’s wife is suffering from disability of less than 40% and as such, not entitled to concession, as provided in the transfer policy. No doubt, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. 3. However, having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is suffering from disability and there is none to take care of her, save and except petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. 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 appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy, which certainly provides certain concessions to an employee having disabled members in the family. Till the time representation, if 3 any, filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 4. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 20,2025 (shankar)