IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the Transfer Order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from GSSS Andretta (KGR) to GSSS Lohardi (Chhota Bhangal) (KGR) which is a hard area vice versa to respondent No. 4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Abhishek Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though the petitioner has completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but since, he had already served for more than eight years in hard area and he is also on the verge of retirement, as per the Transfer Policy, 2013, he cannot be sent to hard area again. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order, whereby he has been transferred from the present place of posting to GSSS Lohardi (Chhota Bhangal) (KGR). 4. Though, petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once it is not in dispute that prior to his posting at present place of posting, he had already served hard area for more than eight years, there was no occasion, if any, to transfer him again to the hard area. Besides, above this Court finds, that petitioner is more than 55 years of age, as such he otherwise cannot be transferred again in hard area in terms of Transfer Policy. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file detailed representation to the respondents, detailing therein five stations of choice within a period of one week, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 order, 3 taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 16, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)