IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14170 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is presently serving as Senior Assistant at GSSS Patlander, District Hamirpur. His grievance is to the office order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereunder, he has been transferred to GDC Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur by clubbing his previous stays within a radius of 08 kilometers. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner though has remained posted at his present place only for about 01 year and 07 months, nonetheless, by clubbing his previous stays within a radius of 08 kilometers, he, therefore, is liable to be transferred, but not to a tribal area as the petitioner is due for superannuation on 31.01.2028. Petitioner is, thus, left with about 02 years and 05 months to superannuate and in view of Clause 12.1 read with Clause 5.5 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013, regulating transfers of State Government employees, he should not have been transferred to a tribal area. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), highlighting the above factors, but the said representation has not been considered till date. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. In view of above submissions, more particularly the submissions made on facts and the relevant clauses of 3 the transfer policy, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of two weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till decision of the representation, operation of the impugned office order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) shall remain stayed. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 02, 2025 Judge Mukesh