IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16393 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Balbir Singh …….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. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is a Class-IV employee, is aggrieved of order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from HPPWD Sub-Division, Shillai to HPPWD, Sub Division, Sataun, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than last seven years, ground of D.O. Note sought to be raised by the petitioner may not be available to him. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is a Class-IV employee and he has been transferred to a station, which is at distance of 60 Km from present place of posting, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of ten days, praying therein for his adjustment/transfer at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. 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 order. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days, is not decided by the competent authority, operation of impugned transfer order shall remain stayed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16,2025 (shankar)