IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21121 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajeshwar Ranta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as DPE/ Lecturer (Physical Education) at GSSS Tharola, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Kot Pab, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Shriyek Sharda, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy because petitioner ought to have been transferred/accommodate at one of the stations of his choice on account of his nearing retirement. Mr. Sharda, states that petitioner is set to retire within less than two years, as such, in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he ought to have been given station of his choice. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at GSSS Tharola, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at GSSS Tharola, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of fact that petitioner is left with only two years service, there appears to be no justification to transfer the petitioner from present place of posting to GSSS Kot Pab, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, rather in such like situation, petitioner ought to have been either retained at present place of posting or given posting at one of the stations of his choice. Since petitioner has already made representation (Annexure P-5) to 2 the competent authority for his adjustment at a convenient station, this Court sees no reason to go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within ten days from today. 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 orders taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which clearly provides that an employee, who has less than two years to retire, shall be given posting of his choice. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner within stipulated time is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 31, 2025 (sunil) 3