1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19730 of 2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdish Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General for respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr.Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Fireman posted at Sub-Fire Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. He takes an exception to office order dated 22.11.2025/26.11.2025 that transferred him to Sub-Fire Station, Shillai, District Sirmour. Transfer has been assiled on the grounds:- (i) Petitioner is left with less than two years of service from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.09.2027; (ii) Transfer has been ordered on 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 the basis of a D.O. note issued by a local politician; (iii) Petitioner is faced with certain adverse family circumstances in as much as his mother is suffering from paralysis, is bed ridden and petitioner’s wife is also suffering from certain serious diseases requiring constant care. It has been pointed out that none else has been transferred in place of petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Under the impugned office order, petitioner has been transferred from Sub-Fire Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur to Sub-Fire Station, Shillai, District Sirmour stated to be a hard/difficult area. In terms of applicable transfer policy, an employee above 55 years of age, ordinarily should not be transferred to hard areas. As per the case set up, the petitioner is about to retire within the next two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the respondents against the impugned transfer order with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within time bound schedule and in accordance with law. 3 This is not objected to by learned Additional Advocate General. Having regard to above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer representation to respondent No.3/Competent Authority against impugned transfer order dated 22.11.2025/ 26.11.2025 within two weeks from today. In case, such a representation is so made, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within next two weeks. Till decision of the said representation, the operation of office order dated 22.11.2025/26.11.2025 shall remain stayed. In other words, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Sub-Fire Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. In case, however, representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated time line, the limited protection made available to him under this order shall stand vacated. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 12, 2025 Judge yogesh