IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19813 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jai Pal ……...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. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. 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 Engineer (Civil), HPPWD, Shimla Rural Division Dhami, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 10.12.2025, whereby he has been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Shimla. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but he could not have been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Shimla, on account of the fact that he is going to retire within one year and two months. Mr. Kaundal, states that in term of transfer policy, a person - 2 - having less than two years to retire is required to be given station of choice. 3. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that petitioner has throughout remained posted in the adjoining stations coupled with the fact that transferred station is hardly 30kms from the present place of posting. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has remained posted in and around Dhami, this Court sees no necessity to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner is retiring in less than two years, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of transfer policy as well as observation made herein above. Till the time, representation is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall - 3 - not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge