IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13805 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vikram Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. C.S.Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though vide order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner, who has been working as CHT, was transferred from GPCS Narag Education Block Narag, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, to GPCS Gagal Shikor, Education Block Sarahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, vice respondent No. 4, Smt. Parveen Kumari, CHT, but yet he is not being relieved. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having taken note of afore grouse of the petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 27.08.2025, called upon learned Additional Advocate General to file reply or have instructions. 3. Pursuant to afore order, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record instructions dated nil issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that transfer order, thereby transferring petitioner from present place of posting to GPCS Gagal Shikor Education Block Sarahan, could not be given effect to on account of the fact that respondent No. 4, Parveen Kumari had filed CWP No. 16645 of 2024, titled as Parveen Kumari Vs. State of H.P & Others, which was disposed of, vide order dated 01.01.2025 with a direction that “either the transfer order qua the petitioner be given effect to forthwith, as she is willing to join the station, to which she stands transferred or in the alternative, the representation(s) filed by the petitioner, be decided after hearing the petitioner and she be adjusted at a station of her choice, if possible, within a period of four weeks from today.” 4. Since needful, in terms of aforesaid order, could not be done, above named Parveen filed another CWP No. 13411 of 2025, titled as Parveen Vs. State of H.P & Others, which was lastly listed before this Court on 28.08.2025. On the afore date, learned counsel 3 representing the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid petition, with liberty to file representation to the competent authority for his transfer to a convenient station, indicating therein vacant stations, where petitioner can be posted. 5. While referring to afore order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that now there is no impediment, if any, for the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the present place of posting, enabling him to join at transferred station, which fact has been fairly admitted by learned Additional Advocate General. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to ensure that petitioner is relieved, in terms of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29, 2025 (Sunil)