IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17957 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Surjinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (School New) Political Science at GSSS Durgella, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by Director of School Education, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Pragpur District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. It has been fairly admitted by the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to the impugned order on the ground that he ought not have been transferred to the transferred station for the reason that he is about to retire within two years and two months and - 2 - in that eventually, he is required to be accommodated or given station of choice. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place coupled with the fact that he is to retire after two years and two months, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 3. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there appears to be no reason for this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner shall be retiring within two years and two months coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, enables an employee nearing retirement to seek transfer/adjustment to one of the stations of choice, 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 one week, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within ten days thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall - 3 - afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as detailed herein above. 4. Since it is apparent from the record that petitioner shall be retiring within two years and two months, meaning thereby, after expiry of two months from the date of passing of the impugned order, he shall otherwise be entitled to claim transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on account of his having remained less than two years to retire, no prejudice if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case prayer made at this juncture on the afore ground is consider and decide by the competent authority so that multiple litigations are avoided. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner in terms of instant order is decided, he shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. November 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge