IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17893 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kashmir Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Binat Sharma and Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Office Assistant (IT) in the Revenue Department, Sub Tehsil Dulahar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 6.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid station to office of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, against a vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting, rather he has been transferred within a period of fifteen months from the date of his joining at present place of posting. - 2 - 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that transfer order has been issued on the request of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una, who has stated that present petitioner is one of the interest right holder concerning vigilance enquiry No. 062025 (regarding the Housing Colony, Village Chhetran, Tehsil haroli, District Una) and his continuation at present place may cause hindrance in fair and impartial conduct of the enquiry proceedings. 4. Pursuant to aforesaid request made by Deputy Superintendent of Police, PS Vigilance, Una, petitioner has been transferred to Bilaspur. While referring to communication dated 23.9.2025 (Annexure R2-1) annexed with the reply of the respondents, Mr. Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that though office of Deputy Commissioner having taken note of afore communication of Deputy Superintendent of Police had requested the Director (Land Records), Himachal Pradesh to post the petitioner to the Tehsil Office or SDM Haroli, but yet he has been sent to far flung area. 5. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General after having perused aforesaid communication states that though Deputy Commissioner may have recommended the Director (Land Records) to post the petitioner at Tehsil office or SDM Haroli, but taking note of the Vigilance Inquiry, it may not be in the interest of the petitioner to - 3 - post him in the aforesaid office because Sub Division Dulehar falls within the direct jurisdiction of SDM, Haroli, and in that capacity, petitioner may get the chance to influence the inquiry. He states that otherwise also, distance between Bilaspur and Una is not very far, rather within 1 ½ hours, one can reach Una from Bilaspur. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that petitioner herein is interest right holder concerning vigilance inquiry as detailed herein above and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to keep him posted at Sub Division Dulehar. Once it is not in dispute that aforesaid office falls under the jurisdiction of SDM Haroli, it may also not be desirable to post him at that station, rather in that situation, he is required to be posted at a station from where he cannot exercise any influence in the pending investigation. 7. Though this court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he has already filed representation to the competent authority for his adjustment at a convenient station, this Court without going in to the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, - 4 - while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge