IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13881 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Piar Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, 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): Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P-12), whereby representation filed by him, in terms of order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.11138 of 2025, titled as Piar Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Anuja Mehta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned order 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 has been passed by the competent authority in a routine manner, without making any effort to ascertain “whether any teacher posted at the station pointed out by the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure of posting or not?” 3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner is that since he has already completed normal tenure at GHS Jammuhar u/c GSSS Ludu, Tehsil and District Chamba, which is sub cadre/hard area, he ought to have been given posting at one of the stations of his choice, but despite there being representations filed by him, respondents transferred him to GMS Rajindu, District Chamba. Repeatedly petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of Civil Writ Petitions. Present petition is the third petition filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. 4. Though this Court, vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 11138 of 2025, while setting aside order dated 04.07.2025 passed on the representation filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, in terms of Transfer Policy, but it appears that respondents are hell-bent in rejecting the representation of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. If the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 is read in its entirety, it is nothing but reiteration of earlier order dated 04.07.2025, which was set aside by this Court. 3 5. Interestingly, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has already joined at transferred station. Though this Court, being fully aware of the petitioner’s joining at the transferred station, had purposely passed order dated 11.07.2025, thereby directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, but it appears that competent authority, without properly examining the factual aspects of the matter, rejected the representation on flimsy grounds. Since the petitioner had already served in the sub-cadre area prior to his transfer, he was entitled to be posted at one of the stations of his choice. Though station of choice may not be vacant, but before passing any order, competent authority was expected to ascertain “whether there is any person with longer stay, who can be transferred with a view to adjust the petitioner at one of the stations of his choice. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Order dated 31.07.2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made hereinabove within two weeks from today. Needless to say, 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 taking 4 note of Transfer Policy. Petitioner, while putting in appearance before authority concerned, may also point out any other station, where he can be given posting. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 28, 2025 (Sunil)