Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33949 (HP)

RAJU RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17402/2025 · 2025-12-08

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17402 of 2025 Decided on: 8th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raju Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order passed in this writ petition on 10.11.2025 notices gist of petitioner’s grievance in relation to his impugned transfer:- “Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 30.10.2025, whereunder he, a Junior Assistant, has been transferred from Sub Treasury Nalagarh, District Solan to Sub Treasury Sangla, District Kinnaur. Petitioner’s grievance has presumably originated on account of transfer of one Smt. Anuradha, who has been transferred from Sub Treasury Sangla, District Kinnaur to Sub Treasury Kumarsain, District Shimla. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. The main ground urged against the impugned transfer order concerns petitioner’s age. Learned proxy counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is currently 56 years of age and is due for retirement in June 2027, therefore, in terms of applicable clauses of the transfer policy, he should not be transferred to hard and tribal area; The place where petitioner has been transferred under the impugned order falls under hard/tribal area. 4. In view of above submissions, office order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) is stayed but only qua petitioner’s transfer from Nalagarh, District Solan to Sangla, District Kinnaur. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed to affect the transfer of Smt. Anuradha from Sangla District Kinnaur to Kumarsain District Shimla in any manner. It shall also remain open for the respondents-State to transfer some other incumbent at Sangla District Kinnaur. Reply/instructions be filed/obtained within five days. List on 17.11.2025.” 2. Respondents have filed reply. The reply does not dispute petitioner’s contention that he has crossed the age of 56 years and is due for retirement in June, 2027. This being the admitted position, Clause 16.1 of the applicable ‘Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees’, circulated vide office memorandum dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure R-2/2), gets attracted, in terms whereof, ‘as far as possible, efforts will be made not to post Officers/Officials in Difficult/ Tribal/Hard/Remote Areas who have crossed the age of 55 (fifty five) years, but this will not be applicable in the case of promotions’. 3 3. In view of above clause, the petitioner, therefore, though is liable to be transferred from his present place of posting, but not to the hard & tribal area, where he has been transferred under the impugned office order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1). 4. Further, learned Assistant Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to him, has also apprised that Smt. Anuradha, Clerk, who was transferred from Sub- Treasury Sangla, District Kinnaur, has already joined at the transferred station, i.e. Sub-Treasury Kumarsain, District Shimla on 13.11.2025 in terms of the impugned office order dated 30.10.2025. 5. In view of above, the impugned office order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside only qua the petitioner. It shall be open for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his transfer afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 08, 2025 Judge Mukesh