IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19726 of 2025 Decided on: 15.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjeet Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. Petitioner is Class-IV employee presently serving in Jal Shakti, Shillai Division, Sub Division Kaffota, District Sirmour, H.P.. He is serving there since the year 2013. His grievance is to the office order dated 08.12.2025 whereby he has been transferred to the office of Assistant Engineer, Jal Shakti, Division Ronhat, District Sirmour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been issued only on the basis of a 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 D.O note. That petitioner is Class-IV employee and under the impugned office order has been sent to place which is about 80 kms from his present place of posting. Learned counsel further submits that impugned is a single transfer and petitioner is as yet continuing at present place of posting. 3. The argument against impugned transfer allegedly having been effected on the basis of D.O note does not impress in the given facts where the petitioner is admittedly serving at one station for more than 13 years. Petitioner is liable to be transferred from his current station. However, considering the fact that petitioner is a Class-IV employee, had previously served in hard areas and under the impugned office order has been transferred once again to the hard area, therefore, he is entitled to the concession that flows under the applicable transfer policy in terms of clause 16.1 thereof. Further the factum of petitioner being a Class-IV employee and justification of transferring him to a long distance is another factor to be kept in view. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner in the given facts and circumstances would make representation to the Competent Authority i.e. respondent No.2 who be directed 3 to decide the same within time bound schedule. This prayer is not objected to by learned Additional Advocate General. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a representation against the impugned office order dated 08.12.2025 within three days from today. In case such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.2/Competent Authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within ten days thereafter. Till such time the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at the present place of posting. The decision so arrived at be also communicated to the petitioner. It is further made clear that in case representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated timeline, the limited protection made available to him under this order shall stand automatically vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 15, 2025 Judge yogesh