2025:HHC:3439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2505 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Kumar Sharma & Anr. …….Petitioners 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. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioners herein, who are husband and wife and are at present working as TGT (Non-medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Sari and Govt. Middle School, Thundal u/c Government Senior Secondary School Sari, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh respectively for the last more than 10 years have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to issue direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide their pending representation for transfer from aforesaid station to one of the stations, detailed in the representation, in terms of transfer policy, which besides providing for minimum tenure of three years at 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3439 one station, also reserves right to an employee to seek transfer after completion of his normal tenure at one station. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed by this Court, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioners, who are husband and wife, has been continuously working in Sub Division Chopal for more than 10 years, but repeatedly requests made by them for their transfer to some other station, have been conveniently ignored by the Department concerned on one pretext or other. It clearly emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioners, which are duly supported by an affidavit, that number of similar situate persons, who have influence in Government, have been working in Urban areas, but the petitioners, who though hale from District Hamirpur have been denied posting in Urban areas on the ground that there is none to replace them and in the event of their 3 2025:HHC:3439 transfer, studies of the students studying at Government Senior Secondary School Sari and Govt. Middle School, Thundal would suffer. 4. Though, this Court agrees with learned Additional Advocate General that studies of the students studying in the schools, detailed hereinabove, cannot be allowed to suffer on account of transfer of teachers, but at the same time this court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioners herein being employees of Education Department are also entitled to seek transfer to Urban areas after their having completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal/sub cadre areas. Since petitioners herein have already served for considerable time in Sub Division, Chopal and there are number of other employees, who have been working in Urban areas for years together, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for their transfer to the station, as detailed in the representation, deserves to be considered by the competent authority. 5. Having taken note of continuous posting of some of the employees in Urban areas, Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.5067 of 2021, titled Tara Tegwan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 30.10.2021, directed the respondents to break the cartel of transfer of each one of the school Lecturers, irrespective of the subject they are teaching on the basis of 4 2025:HHC:3439 incumbency. This Court has reason to believe and presume that pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, Department concerned must have taken adequate steps to break the cartel, but certainly some positive action is also required to be taken in the case of the petitioners. Moreover, Clause -9 of the Transfer policy dated 10th July, 2013 provides that during general transfer, powers to order transfer will be exercised by the number of authorities including Head of the Department , who would be competent to order transfers in respect of Class-III employees after having obtained the approval of Minister-in- Charge. 6. Since in the case at hand, there is ample material adduced on record to show that petitioners are working at one Sub Division for considerable time and their repeated requests for transfers have been denied on account of non-availability of teachers, coupled with the fact that there are number of teachers, who are working in Urban areas for years together, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the competent authority i.e. respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 17.04.2024(Annexure P-5) expeditiously in accordance with law. 5 2025:HHC:3439 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into 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 17.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, shall also take note of Clause 9 of transfer policy dated 10th July, 2013 as well as judgment dated 30.10.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in case tilted Tara Tegwan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and pass detailed order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 25, 2025 (shankar)