2025:HHC:805 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 289 of 2025 Decided on : 04.01.2025 Sanjay Kumar. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed office order, Annexure P-1, dated 19.12.2024, in terms whereof the petitioner, who is serving as an Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sujanpur-Tihra, has been transferred to Municipal Council, Chamba, District Chamba. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer order is bad for the reason that the petitioner has been transferred without permitting him to complete his normal tenure at the present station. He submitted that the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:805 petitioner was posted at Sujanpur in the month of April, 2023 and now again he has been transferred to Chamba, which transfer as per him, is not on account of any administrative exigency, but is on account of political intervention. He further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from spinal issue and the climate at Chamba is cold and unfavourable for his health. He further submitted that the petitioner has aged parents and as he is the only son, therefore also, the the transfer order is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General apprised the Court on the basis of the instructions received, the petitioner has been serving as an Executive Officer at Sujanpur-Tihra since 27.08.2019 and except for a short stint of about 13 days, as the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at Sujanpur-Tihra, there is no infirmity in the order of transfer. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner has been serving at Sujanpur-Tihra for more than four years and four months now and as he has no vested right to serve at 3 2025:HHC:805 Sujanpur-Tihra only, there is no merit in writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer is on the basis of a U.O Note, also has no merit because this Court is of the considered view that persons like petitioner, who somehow able to manage their posting at a station for long period, obviously have to be removed by way of transfer on the basis of the intervention of someone who brings this factum to the notice of the Highest Executive that such an incumbent is sitting glued at a particular station. 6. Further, the contention of the petitioner that because he has aged parents and he is the only son and, therefore, he should not be transferred, also has no merit because majority of employees have aged parents and if transfers are interfered by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction on this ground, then it would be impossible for the State to manage its affairs. 7. The last contention of the petitioner that he is suffering from some spinal issues and the climate of Chamba is cold, also has no merit. Chamba is the District Headquarter, which has moderate temperature and adequate medical 4 2025:HHC:805 facilities. 8. In the light of above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 04, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)