IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1405 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 claims to be working as Operator in the respondent-Department, is aggrieved of order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from HPPWD (B&R) Division Chamba District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to HPPWD (B&R) Division Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that bare perusal of reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that transfer of the petitioner has been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 effected on the basis of complaint and as such, same being punitive, is not sustainable. He states that since before effecting transfer of the petitioner on the basis of complaint, respondents failed to conduct any disciplinary proceedings, present is a fit case where this Court can proceed to quash the impugned transfer order. 3. Careful perusal of reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that petitioner has been working in Chamba Division for more than 17 years and as such, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order. No doubt, reply filed by the respondents suggests that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of complaint made by local residents, but as has been observed hereinabove, petitioner has already completed more than 17 years in District Chamba and as such, this Court sees no reason to accept the aforesaid plea rasied on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that transfer, which has been upheld, shall not be considered to be made on the basis of complaint, rather same shall be deemed to have been made on administrative ground. Petitioner is otherwise at liberty to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station on 3 account of adverse family circumstances, which came to be explained to this Court during the proceedings of the case. Representation, if any, be filed within a period of one week, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days, taking note of transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week is not decided by the competent authority, interim order dated 29.02.2024 shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19,2025 (shankar)