IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11803 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar Nair …….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. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Respondent No. 3 already ex parte vide order dated 13.12.2024 ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant State Taxes and Excise Officer at Barrier Kandwal with additional charge of Nurpur Circle, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby charge of MPB Kandwal, Revenue District Nurpur has been withdrawn and he has been given complete charge of Nurpur Circle, Revenue District Nurpur. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is passed in violation of Transfer Policy because petitioner herein has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting and transfer has been effected with a view to accommodate the private respondent, who has already served at Kandwal for more than one and a half year prior to his posting at Una. 3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that there is no Government accommodation at Nurpur and as such, on account of his transfer from Kandwal to Nurpur, his entire family would be dislodged. 4. Having taken note of aforesaid plea made on behalf of petitioner, this Court passed order dated 04.06.2025 calling upon learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions “whether petitioner herein can be provided residential accommodation in Nurpur or not?” This Court also directed the aforesaid officer to verify that why private respondent, who prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, had already worked in MPB Kandwal, has again been posted in MPB Kandwal. 3 5. Pursuant to aforesaid order, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 20.06.2025, issued under the signatures of Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner has Government facility to stay in MP Barrier Kandwal, RD Nurpur, and there is no Government accommodation available for ASTEOs in Revenue District Nurpur. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, on instructions, states that distance between MPB Kandwal and Nurpur is less than 12 Kms and as such, it cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred, rather impugned transfer order itself suggests that though petitioner prior to his transfer was posted at Nurpur was given additional charge of MPB Kandwal, which has now been withdrawn. Mr. Chauhan, further states that since petitioner has been divested of charge given to him of MPB Kandwal and has not been transferred from Nurpur, present petition deserves dismissal on account of concealment of facts. He further states that as per Transfer Policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, Excise Officer can be transferred from one station to other after expiry of one year. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially impugned transfer order, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, 4 learned Deputy Advocate General, that petitioner has not been transferred from MPB Kandwal, rather charge of aforesaid MPB Kandwal, which was given to him in addition to his duty at Nurpur has been withdrawn. 7. Though Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that petitioner was not given charge of MPB Kandwal, rather he was performing his duty at that station, but having perused impugned transfer order, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Awasthi because bare perusal of same clearly reveals that vide impugned transfer order, charge of MPB Kandwal, Revenue District Nurpur (GST Wing) issued vide office order dated 13.09.2024 has been cancelled and petitioner has been given complete charge of Nurpur Circle, meaning thereby, prior to issuance of impugned transfer order though petitioner was working at Nurpur Circle, but in addition to same, he was given charge of MPB Kandwal, which has now been taken and complete charge of Nurpur Circle has been given to the petitioner. 8. Leaving everything aside, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute that distance between MPB Kandwal and Nurpur is less than 12 Kms, if it is so, petitioner cannot be said to have been transferred. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioner had been working at MPB Kandwal w.e.f October, 2024 and thereafter, 5 pursuant to order dated 23.10.2024 passed by this Court, he is still continuing of the same place, meaning thereby, he has almost completed more than eight months. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which otherwise by no stretch of imagination can be said to be transfer order. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. Needless to say, respondents would take note of the fact that private respondent, prior to his posting at MPB Kandwal, has already remained posted at afore station. If it is so, department may consider posting some other person on that station, especially when Transfer Policy itself suggests that no Excise Officer shall be posted for more than one year at Barriers. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 20, 2025 (Sunil)