IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11780 of 2025 Decided on: 27th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinod Kumar Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Krishan Verma and Mr. Mayank Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Petitioner is serving as Executive Engineer in the respondent-Public Works Department. His grievance in this writ petition is to the notification dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), which transfers him to HPPWD Division Pangi against vacancy. Operation of the impugned notification dated 18.07.2025 was stayed qua the petitioner vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in this writ petition in view of ground taken by the petitioner that he had already served in hard 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 & tribal area of Kaza Division of the respondent- Department during the years 1991-1995, therefore, he could not have been sent to hard & tribal area of Pangi again under the impugned notification. 3. Respondents in their reply filed to the writ petition though have given the incumbency position of the petitioner to highlight his long stay in Mandi Zone, however, the reply does not attribute petitioner’s stay at Mandi on account of any D.O. Note/influence of the petitioner. Be that as it may. 4. Petitioner’s challenge to the impugned notification dated 18.07.2025 is on the ground of his having already served hard & tribal area. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents in their reply. Given this admitted position, petitioner’s transfer once again to hard & tribal area of Pangi under the impugned notification has not been justified by the respondents, more so, when the petitioner is at the fag end of his service career and is left with just about 08 months to superannuate, i.e. on 30.06.2026. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh