IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8451 of 2025 Date of Decision:22.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hans Raj …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D.Nanda & Ms. Anita Jalota, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Peon in the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of transfer order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to the Office of Observation Home Samoorkalan, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner herein has been not permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 factum with regard to illness of his wife has been also not taken into consideration by the respondents. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that as per the averments contained in the petition, petitioner has already completed three years at present place of posting and as such, it cannot be said that his transfer is against the transfer policy. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for his adjustment at a convenient station on account of illness of his wife shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. 4. Since, petitioner herein has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and there is nothing on record to suggest that factum with regard to illness of wife of the petitioner was in the knowledge of the respondents, while issuing transfer order, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. 5. However, having taken note of averments contained in the petition, wherein factum with regard to illness of wife of the petitioner has been specifically averred, this Court without going into 3 the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 21.04.2025 of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. 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 appropriate order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22,2025 (shankar)