IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15897 of 2024 Date of Decision:17.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pinki Rani …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Forest Guard in Forest Beat Takka, Forest Block and Range Una under Forest Division Una, Circle Hamirpur, is aggrieved of order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Forest Beat Bangarh, Block Santoshgarh, Range Una under Forest Division Una against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy, because petitioner has been not permitted to complete 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. Besides above, it has been also argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned transfer order has been effected on the basis of D.O. note issued by local MLA. 3. Reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though nowhere disputes that petitioner has not completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but it has been claimed that impugned transfer order has been affected in the public interest with the approval of competent authority. Reply filed by afore respondents further reveals that prior to petitioner’s posting in District Una, she was posted at Hamirpur, where she remained posted for almost eight years. Allegation of transfer on the basis of D.O. Note has been specifically denied. Private respondent, namely Sh. Pradeep Singh, who has been ordered to be transferred at the place of the petitioner, though was issued notice, but he despite service, failed to put in appearance and as such, ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.03.2025. 4. Having noticed aforesaid conduct of private respondent, this Court is of the view that private respondent is no more interested to contest the present proceedings and he appears to be willing to serve at his previous station of posting. Since prior to petitioner’s posting in District Una, she was working in District Hamirpur, coupled 3 with the fact that transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, deserves to be interfered with. 5. However, having carefully perused the reply filed by the respondents as well as impugned transfer order, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions made at the behest of the petitioner that her transfer has been effected on the basis of D.O. Note, but since petitioner has yet to complete her normal tenure of posting, coupled with the fact that private respondent has not come forward to contest the case, this Court is of the view that no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case petitioner herein is permitted to complete her normal tenure at present place of posting. Though, at the time of filing the petition, petitioner had served for more than one year seven months, but after passing of order dated 21.12.2024, whereby impugned transfer order was stayed, petitioner has already completed almost two years, but yet she is left with nine months to complete her tenure at present place of posting. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is quashed and set- aside and respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to 4 complete her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and thereafter, department, if deems fit, may consider her posting at some other station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 2. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17,2025 (shankar)