1IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19191 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Aditya Mahajan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Agriculture Development Officer in the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Una, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Development Block Tissa, Distt. Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting, rather he has been transferred within 15 days. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein factum with regard to petitioner’s transfer within 15 days has not been denied, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he, being Class-I Officer, cannot take shelter of Transfer Policy. Besides above, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, also attempted to argue that petitioner has throughout remained posted in one district, however, such plea of him is totally contrary to the reply, wherein it has been categorically stated that petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Development Officer on contract basis and was posted in the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla w.e.f 16.01.2023 to 05.02.2023. Subsequently, petitioner was transferred to Development Block Dehra, District Kangra. Though after his being regularized against the post in question, petitioner was ordered to be posted at Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, but subsequently on his request, transfer order was modified and he was adjusted in the office of DDA, Una. Within 15 days of his joining at Una, petitioner has been again transferred to Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1863 of 2018, titled as Rattan Chand Vs. State of H.P & others, decided on 2 24.10.2018, has categorically held that possessing power to transfer Class-I Gazetted Officer is one thing and the manner in which such power is exercised is altogether different. Every official, whether Class- IV or Class-I, is expected to remain posted for an ordinary tenure of three years or so save where there exist administrative grounds, exigency or public interest demanding his premature transfer. Relevant para of the afore judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “The petitioner is working as a Principal in Government Senior Secondary School. He was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Alampur, District Kangra, H.P in September 2017. After a few months i.e. on 24th May, 2018, he was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School(Girl) at Anni, District Kullu. He challenged that transfer order before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. His Original Application was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation which was directed to be considered and disposed of. Pursuant to order dated 29th May, 2018 of the Tribunal, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh passed the order dated 19th July, 2018, according to which the petitioner being a Class-I Gazetted Officer “can be transferred to any where in the State in exigency of the service on administrative grounds…...”. In our considered view, order dated 19th July, 2018 of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh does not meet with the requirement of principles of fair and just play. Possessing power to transfer Class-I Gazetted Officer is one thing and the manner in which such power is exercised is altogether different. Every official, whether class-IV or Class-I, is expected to remain posted for an ordinary tenure of three years or so save where there exist administrative grounds, exigency or public interest demanding his premature transfer. No such reasons find mention in the order of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal 3 Pradesh to re-consider the petitioner’s request sympathetically for his posting preferably against a vacant post in District Kangra or at a place which is near to his home town. In case, the petitioner is required to be posted at a place which is already occupied by an incumbent, such incumbent should also not be transferred prematurely. In other words, uniform policy pattern be adopted as far as possible in the matter of administrative transfers. An appropriate decision be taken within two weeks.” 4. Though Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to contend that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the ground of public interest, but there is nothing in the reply to substantiate the aforesaid stance put forth on behalf of the respondents. Moreover, it is not understood that once respondents themselves 15 days prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, cancelled the transfer of the petitioner, whereby he was transferred from Dehra to Keylong, what necessity arose to transfer the petitioner from Una to Tissa within 15 days, vide impugned transfer order, which otherwise has been issued on the basis of UO Note issued from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and aside. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at present place of 4 posting and thereafter, if necessary, he may be transferred to a tribal area for the reason that he has not served in a trial area. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 5