IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10341 of 2023 Date of Decision: 20.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Khub Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. 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 Peon, in the office of HPPWD Rewalsar District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, laying therein challenge to order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) on the ground of short stay. 2. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner was not allowed to complete normal tenure at his present place of posting, this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023, stayed the operation of order dated 11.12.2023, as a result thereof, petitioner continued to work at HPPWD Sub- Division Rewalser under Mandi Division. Though - 2 - allegations leveled by the petitioner in the petition have been seriously refuted by the respondents in their reply, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at present placing of posting, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive, rather same deserves to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 3. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that petitioner herein cannot be transferred from present place of posting on account of the fact that he is left with only eight months service, which fact has been otherwise admitted by the respondents in their reply, however, this Court is not inclined to accept aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, rather in that regard, he is required to approach the competent authority for cancellation of his transfer or for adjustment at a nearby station in terms of clause 5.5 of the transfer policy, which provides that person having less than two years of service shall not be normally transferred. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the respondent department within one week, praying therein for cancellation of his transfer or his adjustment at a nearby station in terms of Clause-5.5 of the policy, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days thereafter. Needless to say, authority concerned, while affording opportunity of hearing to the - 3 - petitioner shall also take note of the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within one week is decided by the respondent- department, interim order dated 15.11.2023, passed by this Court shall remain in force. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge