2025:HHC:4109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2853 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Diwan Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JOA (IT) in the office of Sub-Tehsil Office, Makreri, District Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from Sub-Tehsil Office, Makreri, District Mandi to DC Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of transfer policy wherein minimum tenure of posting at one place of station has been prescribed as three years, whereas petitioner has been ordered to be transferred vide impugned transfer order within a period of less then two years. It 2 is further averred in the petition that since petitioner is going to superannuate in the month of December, 2025, he otherwise cannot be transferred in terms of transfer policy, rather, in the event of transfer, he is required to be given station of his choice. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that bare perusal of material adduced on record itself suggest that petitioner has been working in and around Mandi District and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed while passing impugned order. He further states that since representation filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance is still pending before the competent authority, present petition is not maintainable. 4. Though this Court is fully conscious of the fact that it is the sole prerogative of an employer to transfer an employee, but same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that transfers can be effected strictly in terms of transfer policy. Transfer policy promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh prescribes for minimum of three years at one station. Though employer is not estopped from transferring an employee before his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, but in such situation, administrative exigency is required to be shown. 3 5. Be that as it may, once it is not in dispute that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and he is to superannuate in the month of December, 2025, coupled with the fact that he has already approached competent authority for redressal of his grievance, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. 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. 6. Till disposal of representation filed by the petitioner, in terms of directions contained in the instant order, petitioner shall not be relieved from the present place of posting, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge