IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15641 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gulbadan Singh …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, 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): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(i) That the office order dated 11.09.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside so far it relates to fixing of Headquarter. (ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to fix the Headquarter of the petitioner in view of instructions dated 2.1.2024 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Pensions and Public Grievance.” 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 respondents purposely with an intention to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 harass the petitioner have fixed his headquarter for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings at a distance of 150 Km from the present place of his posting. Though, before approaching this Court in the instant proceedings, petitioner by way of representation dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) approached the respondents for changing his headquarter but since needful has been not done, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court instead of calling upon respondents to file reply directed learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions from the concerned quarter. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that representation (Annexure P-3), shall be decided within a period of one week. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Deputy Director of School Education (Elementary) Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall take note of the fact that petitioner is about to retire within a period of five months and otherwise also, in no circumstance headquarter of 3 suspended employee can be fixed at a distance of 150 Km from the original place of posting, if permitted, that would amount to penalization of the employee. While doing the needful, authority concerned would also take note of the stations given by the petitioner for fixation of his headquarter. Otherwise also, very purpose and object of shifting headquarter other than the place of posting to ensure that no record or evidence is tempered by the delinquent Offical, but certainly by way of fixation of headquarter at far flung area, petitioner cannot be harassed. Till the time representation is not decided, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the headquarter fixed vide order dated 11.09.2025. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26,2025 (shankar)