IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19373 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajpal Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Block Elementary Education Officer, Sangrah, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby representation dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) filed by him for his transfer to one of the stations of his choice came to be rejected on the ground that at present there is a complete ban on transfers. 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 though petitioner herein is due to retire within 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 a period of less than two years, but yet his prayer for transfer has been rejected on flimsy grounds. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that since petitioner was given posting as Block Elementary Education Officer, Sangrah on account of his promotion, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order dated 01.09.2025. 4. Though, there cannot be any dispute that petitioner came to be posted at Sangrah on account of his promotion as Block Elementary Education Officer, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of his nearing retirement, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 01.09.2025 has been passed in violation of the transfer policy. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 01.09.2025 is quashed and set- aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the 3 representation dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order and would also take note of provision contained in the transfer policy with regard to adjustment of an employee nearing retirement, especially when petitioner is due to retire with a period of less than two years. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 09,2025 (shankar)