IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16164/2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025 Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioner is serving as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Chabutra, District Hamirpur. His challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has been transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Kotla Mangan, District Sirmour. The transfer was ordered vice respondent No.2, who was brought in place of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Kotla Mangan, District Sirmour. 2. Petitioner has assailed his transfer from Government Senior Secondary School, Chabutra, District Hamirpur on the grounds that:- (i) He had joined the present station only on 13.05.2025; he was not allowed to complete his normal tenure at the present station; and within a short span of about five months, he was ordered to be transferred from the present place. (ii) Transfer has been ordered on the basis of a D.O. Note issued at the instance of respondent No.2. Petitioner is slated to retire in the month of October, 2027. Pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition on 14.10.2025, the petitioner is continuing to serve at Government Senior Secondary School Chabutra, District Hamirpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Respondent No.1-State, in its reply, has neither refuted the fact of petitioner’s short tenure at his present place of posting nor petitioner’s allegation of the impugned transfer having been ordered on the basis of a D.O. Note. The only defence taken in the reply is that the petitioner holds a Class-I Gazetted post, borne on the State cadre, thus, is liable to be posted anywhere in the State on the administrative requirement/exigency. 3 Stand of respondent No.2, as canvassed by his learned counsel, is that, firstly, no D.O. note was issued at his instance. The impugned transfer has been ordered under a common order whereby many officers/officials were transferred. Secondly, respondent No.2 is left with about five and a half months for his retirement, therefore, he was rightly transferred to his convenient place. Petitioner and respondent No.2 belong to Class-I cadre. No doubt, in terms of the applicable transfer policy, State employees nearing their age of superannuation, particularly those belonging to the Class-III and IV cadre, are normally to be accommodated at places convenient to them, however, this would not mean that such accommodation has to be provided to the detriment of others, without caring for the hardship caused to the employees sought to be disturbed. Admission of respondent No.2 that under the impugned order he has been transferred to his convenient place gives rise to a bonafide presumption of respondent No.2 having made a representation to the employer for his adjustment at the fag end of his service in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. The employer would indeed be obliged in law, and as per the transfer policy, to consider respondent No.2 for suitable adjustment keeping in view his impending retirement. However, in the instant case, respondent No.2 has been adjusted at 4 petitioner’s place of posting, whereas petitioner had been posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Chabutra, District Hamirpur only on 13.05.2025. He had served at the said station for only about five months when he was ordered to be transferred to make way for the adjustment of respondent No.2. Even if the petitioner belongs to the State cadre, in terms of Rattan Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 he cannot be made a rolling stone to be disturbed in this manner. No other administrative exigency has been pointed out by respondent No.1-employer in its reply. The incumbency position of the petitioner also does not reflect that he is not to be given the benefit of the normal tenure at his present place. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned notification dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and respondent No.2. In the given facts and circumstances, particularly keeping in view the impending retirement of respondent No.2, liberty is reserved to the said respondent to make a representation to respondent No.1/competent authority, within a period of one week from today for his adjustment, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of applicable Transfer Policy, within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The order so passed be also communicated to respondent No.2. 2 CWP No. 1863/2018 decided on 24.10.2018 5 The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th December, 2025(rohit)