IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8503 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Chaman Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Rakesh Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Tung, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore Panchayat to Gram Panchayat Nasloh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order of the petitioner is not sustainable, being in violation of transfer policy. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since petitioner has already served at Gram Panchayat Nasloh, which is a hard area, there was otherwise no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 occasion for respondents to again transfer him at the same station, rather he ought to have been permitted to continue at the present place of posting, especially when he has not completed normal tenure of posting at present station. While referring to communication dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that besides work of Gram Panchayat Tung, petitioner has been given additional work of Gram Panchayat, Dhuiandevi, where post is otherwise lying vacant. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that instead of Nasloh, he may be sent to Dhuiandevi. Though before coming to this Court, petitioner filed representation to the competent authority for posting him at Dhuiandevi, but since needful was not done well within the stipulated time, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since it is not in dispute that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at Gram Panchayat Tung, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while ordering transfer of the petitioner to Gram Panchayat Nasloh, however, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is unable to dispute that prior to petitioner’s posting at Gram Panchayat Tung, he was working in Gram Panchayat Nasloh, which falls in Chauhar valley. As per Clause 15 of Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 i.e. Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 for 3 regulating the transfer of State Government employees, Chauhar valley of District Mandi falls in ‘Most Difficult Area’. True it is that petitioner has almost completed normal tenure of posting at Gram Panchayat Tung, but once it is not in dispute that he has already served in Gram Panchayat Nasloh, which falls under hard area, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to again transfer the petitioner to Gram Panchayat Nasloh, rather, he on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, could have been transferred to some other area. 4. Since it is apparent from the perusal of order dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) that petitioner has been given additional charge of Gram Panchayat Dhuiandevi, against vacant post, this Court is of the view that petitioner could have been transferred to afore station, against vacant post. Since petitioner has already filed representation to the competent authority (Annexure P-5) for his adjustment at Gram Panchayat Dhuiandevi, coupled with the fact that post at afore station is lying vacant, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. 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 4 fact that petitioner has already served at Gram Panchayat Nasloh, which falls under hard area and one post against which petitioner can be adjusted is lying vacant at Gram Panchayat Dhuiandevi. Till the time, representation of petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, as detailed hereinabove, he shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)