IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15649 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant and presently posted at HPPWD, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla against vacant post. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy because petitioner has not been permitted to complete normal tenure of posting. He states that petitioner has been working at Nalagarh for the last one year six months, whereas normal tenure 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is three years. He further states that petitioner is due to retire within a period of one year five months and as such, he is otherwise required to be given station of his choice. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner on account of his nearing retirement for his adjustment at nearby station, shall be considered in accordance with law. 4. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prescribes for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner herein is about to retire within a period of one year five months, this Court sees reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, which otherwise appears to have been passed in violation of transfer policy for two reasons i.e. (i) petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting and (ii) petitioner is nearing retirement. As per transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee nearing retirement or 3 having less than two years to retire, is required to be given posting at the station of his choice. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to ensure that petitioner is permitted to work at the present place of posting, but in case he is required to be transferred from the present place of posting in public interest, he may be given posting at one of the station of his choice on account of his nearing retirement. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26,2025 (shankar)