IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19383 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Balram 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. R.S. Jagota, proxy counsel, for Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein who at present is working as Pharmacy Officer at CH Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to PHC Timbi, District Sirmaur. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, because same has been issued on the basis of D.O. note issued by respondent No.5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further submitted that wife of the petitioner has expired last month and as such, there is none to take care of his two minor children, who at present are 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 studying in the School situated at the present place of posting of the petitioner. 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 Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since petitioner has completed more than four years at the present place of posting, factum with regard to issuance of D.O. note is of no relevance. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed more than four years at the present place of posting and as such, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Though learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that impugned transfer order has been effected on the basis of D.O. note, but to substantiate aforesaid fact, no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record. Otherwise also, plea of D.O. note, if any, may not be of much relevance for the reason that petitioner has already completed more than four years at the present place of posting. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that wife of the petitioner has expired last month and there is none to take care of two minor children, who are 3 studying in the School situated at the present place of posting, 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 representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein for cancellation/adjustment at convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days, taking note of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 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 orders. Till the time, representation, if filed within three days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)