IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2622 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Rajeev. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, a Senior Assistant, belonging to State Cadre feels aggrieved of the office order dated 21.02.2025 that transfers him from HPPWD NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur to HPPWD Sangrah Division, District Sirmaur. The impugned transfer order has been issued vice respondent No.3, who has been brought in place of petitioner at Nahan from Sangrah. 2. The facts pleaded by the petitioner are that:- 2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 14.09.2012 and appointed as such in HPPWD Chopal, District Shimla. The petitioner served at Chopal w.e.f. 17.09.2012 upto August, 2016, i.e. for a period of about 4 years. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 2(ii). In August, 2016, the petitioner was transferred to NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur. The petitioner served at this station upto 07.06.2024. 2(iii). On 07.06.2024, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant and upon promotion, he was transferred from NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur to Electrical Division-II, Shimla. The petitioner served at the transferred station (Shimla) consequent upon his promotion w.e.f. 10.06.2024 to 29.07.2024. In other words, on promotion the petitioner served at Shimla for about 1.5 months. 2(iv). On 29.07.2024, the petitioner was once again brought back to NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur. 2(v). On 21.02.2025, the respondents transferred the petitioner from NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur to HPPWD Division Sangrah, District Sirmaur. Petitioner feels aggrieved against his transfer to Sangrah under order dated 21.02.2025 and therefore, has moved this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. -3- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:- 4(i). Petitioner has been transferred after short stay of 7 months at the present place of posting at NH Division Nahan. He has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting. 4(ii). Transfer has been effected on political interference, merely to accommodate respondent No.3 at NH Division Nahan. 4(iii). Challenge has also been laid to office memorandum dated 13.02.2025, whereby one additional Para 22 A with the heading “Redressal of grievance on account of Transfer” has been inserted in the office memorandum dated 10.07.2013 under the subject “Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 (CGP-2013) for regulating the transfer of State Government employees – prescription of new provision thereof”. 5. Observations. 5(i) Petitioner’s contentions on facts are misplaced. It is an admitted position that petitioner has served for 7 years at NH Division Nahan w.e.f. August, 2017 to 07.06.2024, -4- during which period services of the petitioner were also regularized. It was on his promotion as Senior Assistant on 07.06.2024 that the petitioner was transferred to Electrical Division-II, Shimla. Petitioner availed his promotion and accordingly, joined at Electrical Division-II, Shimla. However, petitioner served at the transferred station (Shimla) only for a period of 1.5 months. On 29.07.2024, the petitioner again managed to get himself transferred back to NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur, where he had already served for 7continuous years and from where he was shifted just about a month & half ago. 5(ii) To a query of the Court as to whether petitioner’s re-transfer to NH Division Nahan on 29.07.2024 was at petitioner’s instance and request, the answer given by learned counsel for the petitioner was in affirmative. It was also apprised that the petitioner belongs to Nahan District Sirmaur. In view of above facts, where the petitioner had admittedly been continuously serving at NH Division Nahan w.e.f. August 2016 till date with a short break of about 1.5 months at Shimla (08.06.2024-28.07.2024), his plea of -5- having been transferred under the impugned order after a short-stay of 7 months at Nahan, cannot be countenanced. Petitioner admittedly belongs to State Cadre. But for short tenure of 1.5 months at Shimla (08.06.2024-28.07.2024) where he was posted on promotion, petitioner till date has been serving at NH Division Nahan, District Sirmaur ever since August, 2016. He is required to serve in other districts as well in the State. In fact, under the impugned office order, petitioner has though been transferred but again to a division in District Sirmaur itself. No case for interference with the impugned office order is made out. In view of above, it is not necessary to advert to petitioner’s contentions against office memorandum dated 13.02.2025. The question of law in this regard is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 27th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)