IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19033 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.12.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Muni Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Agriculture Development Officer at Development Block Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the Office of DDA, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy because he has not been permitted to complete normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, rather has been transferred within short span of four months. 2 3. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, wherein factum with regard to petitioner’s transfer within short span of four months has been not disputed, rather attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he being Class-I Officer is liable to be posted anywhere in the State. Besides above, it has been further stated that petitioner, being Class-I Officer, cannot take shelter of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, however this Court is not impressed with aforesaid stand taken by the respondent-Department. Moreover, normal tenure of posting is three years, whereas petitioner has been transferred within short span of four months. 4. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1863 of 2018, titled as Rattan Chand Vs. State of H.P. & others, wherein it has been held as under:- “The petitioner is working as a Principal in Government Senior Secondary School. He was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Alampur, District Kangra, H.P in September 2017. After a few months i.e. on 24th May, 2018, he was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School(Girl) at Anni, District Kullu. He challenged that transfer order before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. His Original Application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation which was directed to be considered and disposed of. Pursuant to order dated 29th May, 2018 of 3 the Tribunal, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh passed the order dated 19th July, 2018, according to which the petitioner being a Class-I Gazetted Officer “can be transferred to any where in the State in exigency of the service on administrative grounds…...”. In our considered view, order dated 19th July, 2018 of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh does not meet with the requirement of principles of fair and just play. Possessing power to transfer Class-I Gazetted Officer is one thing and the manner in which such power is exercised is altogether different. Every official, whether class-IV or Class-I, is expected to remain posted for an ordinary tenure of three years or so save where there exist administrative grounds, exigency or public interest demanding his premature transfer. No such reasons find mention in the order of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to re-consider the petitioner’s request sympathetically for his posting preferably against a vacant post in District Kangra or at a place which is near to his home town. In case, the petitioner is required to be posted at a place which is already occupied by an incumbent, such incumbent should also not be transferred prematurely. In other words, uniform policy pattern be adopted as far as possible in the matter of administrative transfers. An appropriate decision be taken within two weeks.” 5. Though, learned Deputy Advocate General attempted to argue that petitioner throughout remained posted in District Mandi, however, having taken note of para-2 of the reply, wherein detail with regard to petitioner posting has been given, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Deputy Advocate General for the reason that before transfer of the petitioner to Development Block Balh, District Mandi, he was posted at Development Block, Salooni, District Chamba. 4 Besides above, he also remained posted at Development Block, Sangrah, District Sirmour and Development Block, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 6. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties to the lis that petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at present place of posting, impugned transfer order needs to be interfered. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned transfer order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to complete his normal tenure at his present place of posting and thereafter, if required, he may be transferred to any station as per the exigencies of service. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge