IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14084/2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 Arun Dhiman …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The petitioner is serving as Patwari in the respondent Revenue Department. His grievance is to the office order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereunder he was transferred from Patwar Circle Kohlu, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, to Patwar Circle Dakshin Magru, Sub-Tehsil Chhatri, District Mandi. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. The gist of petitioner’s grievance against the impugned transfer order, was noticed in the order passed in this writ petition on 01.09.2025 as under, while granting interim relief to him: - “Notice at this stage confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. 2. Petitioner is presently serving as Patwari at PC Kohlu, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. His grievance is to the office order dated 26.08.2025, transferring him to Patwar Circle Dakshin Magru, Sub Tehsil Chhatri, District Mandi, against vacancy. 3. The transfer has been assailed primarily on the grounds that: - Petitioner was posted at the present station on 09.08.2024, where he has just completed one year; Petitioner has two more years for completing normal tenure at the present place; Another ground urged is that impugned transfer is the result of a DO note issued by respondent No.3. Further the petitioner has pleaded that his wife was transferred on 12.03.2025 at Ner Chowk, District Mandi on grounds of couple posting and the impugned office order disturbs not only the petitioner, but would also be against the mandate and guidelines issued by the State regulating transfers of couples employed in the State Government. 5. In view of grounds urged, petitioner has made out a prima facie case against the impugned order. Accordingly, office order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner, till the next date of hearing. Reply be filed by the next date of hearing. List on 22.09.2025.” 3. Respondents have filed the reply admitting therein that the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner was transferred under the impugned order on the basis of 3 U.O. Note appended as Annexure 2/2. Respondents have not specifically refuted petitioner’s allegations levelled in para-5 of the writ petition that the petitioner had been transferred on the basis of specific D.O. Note, in fact, during hearing of the case, learned Assistant Advocate General admitted that petitioner’s impugned transfer was ordered on the basis of D.O. Note. 4. Since petitioner’s contentions for assailing the impugned transfer order have not been refuted by the respondents, rather stand admitted, the same makes out a genuine case for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th October, 2025(rohit)