IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15015 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ……...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. L.S. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 12.9.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby representation filed by him in terms of order dated 17.7.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.11458 of 2025, titled as Dinesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., came to be rejected, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order and direct the respondents to transfer him to one of the stations of choice on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein, who at present is working as Kanungo in the office - 2 - of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, was initially appointed as Patwari in the month of June 2011. In the aforesaid capacity, he was posted at Patwar Circle Tarela, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is notified as hard area in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner remained posted in the aforesaid station till June 2018 i.e. for more than seven years. In June 2018, petitioner was transferred to Sub Tehsil Pukhri, District Chamba, where he remained posted till December 2021. In the month of December, 2021, petitioner was promoted as Kanungo and he was given posting at Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is sub-cadre area of the State and since then, he has been rendering services there. 3. On 15.7.2025, petitioner was transferred to the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area, in place of private respondent and as such, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8105 of 2024, stating therein that since he has already served tribal area, he could not have been again transferred to the hard/tribal area. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of transfer, petitioner preferred CWP No. 11458 of 2025, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.7.2025, with direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by him. - 3 - 5. Pursuant to aforesaid order, respondents herein vide impugned order dated 12.9.2025 (Annexure P-3), rejected the representation of the petitioner and as such, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order. 6. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. L.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that competent authority while passing impugned order failed to take note of the fact that petitioner prior to his promotion to the post of Kanungo remained posted in hard/difficult area for more than seven years and as such, in terms of transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, he could not have been transferred to hard/tribal area again. Mr. Mehta also invited attention of this Court to instructions/guidelines dated 4.7.2025, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in compliance to order passed by this Court in CWP No.10255 of 2025 titled as Bharti Ratore v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., to state that every employee during his/her entire period of service will serve for at least single tenure in tribal/difficult/hard/remote/rural area. He submitted that since petitioner has already worked in hard/tribal area for more than prescribed period of three years, there was no occasion, if any, to transfer him to hard/tribal area again, rather he on account of his permission ought to have been posted in some soft area. - 4 - 7. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned order attempted to argue that petitioner, who is permanent resident of Sub-Tehsil Pukhri, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, remained posted within the radius of 30kms for the last seven years during his entire service. He submitted that though petitioner requested to transfer him to Sub- Tehsil Office Bhalei,but since post of Kanungo was not vacant there coupled with the fact that he never served in hard area, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned order, thereby directing the petitioner to join duty in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh as ordered by Directorate vide communication dated 15.7.2025. He further submitted that otherwise also, order laid challenge in the instant proceedings was passed in purported compliance of directions contained in CWP No. 8105 of 2024. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute that prior to petitioner’s promotion to the post of Kanungo, he remained posted as Patwari at Patwar Circle Tarela, Tehsil Churah, which is a hard area. After his having rendered more than seven years service in afore area, petitioner was posted to Sub–Tehsil Pukhri, District Chamba, where he remained posted till December 2021. In the month of the December 2021, petitioner was promoted to the post - 5 - of Kanungo and as such, was required to be transferred from Sub- Tehsil Pukhri District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, however, question which needs to be determined in the instant case is “whether petitioner herein, who had already served hard area for more than seven years, could have been again transferred to tribal area or not?” 9. Though order laid challenge in the instant proceedings suggests that petitioner never remained posted in tribal area, but once petitioner has already served in hard area coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer to one of the stations of choice after having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, petitioner should not have been again transferred to hard/tribal area, rather on account of his promotion ought to have been given posting in some soft area. Though petitioner had requested him to transfer him to Sub-Tehsil Office Bhalei, but since post of Kanungo was not available at that time, respondents instead of sending him to Pangi, could have posted him in some other station, but definitely not in hard/tribal area. 10. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that petitioner’s transfer to Pangi came to be effected pursuant to order dated 18.6.2025, whereby direction was issued to decide the representation of Mr. Parmod Kumar, who prior to his having joined civil services, had rendered his - 6 - services in Indian Army, but such prayer of him, deserves outright rejection for the reason that this Court while passing aforesaid direction never asked the respondents to dislodge the petitioner. Though on account of direction issued by this Court in afore writ petition, respondents would have accommodated Mr. Parmod Kumar at the place of the petitioner, who admittedly had completed his normal tenure of posting at Salooni, but could not have further transferred the petitioner to tribal area, rather on account of his promotion coupled with the fact that he had already served in hard area for more than seven years, ought to have been transferred to other soft area where post was available. 11. Similarly, this court finds that observation made by the competent authority in the impugned order that petitioner never remained posted in tribal area may not be of much consequence for the reason that he has already served in hard area for seven years. Transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh provides concession to an employee, who has worked in hard/tribal area. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.9.2025 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file fresh representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his - 7 - transfer/adjustment against a vacant post of his choice, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. November 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge