IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19269 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, 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 Junior Engineer in Jal Shakti Vibhag Barsar, Section Bijhari, is aggrieved of order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Jal Shakti Division Thanakalan, Sub- Division Basal, District Una, against vacant post, in public interest. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner herein never requested for his transfer, but perusal of impugned transfer order, whereby TTA/JT has been denied to the petitioner, suggests that same has been passed on his request. He further states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, transfer order, passed in violation of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Lastly, Mr. Banyal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that wife of the petitioner is six months pregnant and as such, it will be too harsh and difficult for him to shift to a new place, which is at a distance of 50-60 kilometers from the present place of posting. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that petitioner has completed more than two years at the present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer is the prerogative of an employer, who may post an employee at particular station, as per requirement. 4. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once it is not in dispute that minimum tenure of an employee at one station is three years, coupled with the fact that wife of the petitioner is six months pregnant, 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 3 representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein for cancellation/adjustment at nearby station, on the ground of pregnancy of his wife, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. 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 any, filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, he shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)