IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15996/2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 Sushil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Sushil Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 was moved by the petitioner against the order dated 06.08.2025, whereunder he was transferred from the office of Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur to the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Salooni, District Chamba. In the above petition, it was submitted at the behest of the petitioner that though he had completed his normal tenure in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 13415/2025 decided on 21.08.2025 2 office of Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur, however, his wife was suffering from Cancer & under treatment from PGIMER and Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital Chandigarh. Petitioner’s grievance was that his representation preferred against the impugned transfer order dated 06.08.2025 had not been considered and decided by the competent authority. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.08.2025 with direction to the respondent/competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by giving him an opportunity of being heard, keeping in view the fact that his wife was ill and required medical attention. Till the decision of the representation, respondents were directed not to compel the petitioner to join at the transferred station. Pursuant to the said direction, respondents passed an office order on 24.09.2025. Petitioner’s request for cancellation of his transfer order issued on 06.08.2025, was turned down, as he had been statedly transferred on administrative ground. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner’s wife was under treatment at Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Medicity, New Chandigarh, he was transferred to the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Pachhad, District Sirmaur, which was stated to be at a distance of 75 kms from the said hospital. 3. Petitioner has now preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of the office order dated 24.09.2025 as also the 3 consequential transfer order issued by the respondents on 06.10.2025, directing the petitioner to report at his new place of posting i.e. the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Pachhad, District Sirmaur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that the petitioner was posted at his present place i.e. in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur in August, 2016 and has, thus, completed more than nine years at the said station. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner’s wife was diagnosed, to be suffering from Cancer in the year 2020 and her medical condition requires constant care and attention. Having notice these aspects, it also needs to be mentioned that if that was the position, it was for the petitioner to have indicated certain stations before the competent authority, where he could have been accommodated keeping in view the illness of his wife. As per impugned order, the only request made for the petitioner was to cancel the transfer order and for his continued retention at Hamirpur, where he had already served for more than nine years. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to make a fresh representation to respondent No.3 for his adjustment at some other place, in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, the said respondent/competent 4 authority is directed to consider and decide the representation to be filed by him, within time bound schedule. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.3/competent authority for his adjustment/transfer at some other place, where vacancies are available. In case, such representation is so made within one week, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, keeping in view illness of petitioner’s wife, within one week thereafter. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the leave of kind due. In case, however, the representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated time-line, the limited protection made available to him under this order shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th October, 2025(rohit)