2025:HHC:5263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3227 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) 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 though petitioner has less than five years to superannuate, but yet in violation of Clause 12.1 of Transfer Policy, he has been ordered to be transferred in hard area vide order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-1). 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that perusal of order dated 05.03.2025 itself suggests same has been passed in purported compliance of order/judgment dated 30.12.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16344 of 2024 and as such, no interference is called for. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner, who at present is working as TGT in Government High School Khuthrin, District Hamirpur, has less than five years to retire. Clause 12.1 of Transfer Policy, which is reproduced herein below, clearly reveals that person having less than five years to superannuate shall not be transferred to hard area. “12.1 All the Departments will ensure that all employees during their entire period of service will serve for at least single tenure in the Tribal/ Difficult/Hard areas and remote/rural areas. In order to earn their promotion service in such areas will be mandatory. This would be subject to adequate number of posts being available in such areas. However, this will not apply to those employees who have less than 5 (Five) years to superannuate. This stipulation is to be incorporated in R & P Rules wherever applicable. A common provision to this effect has been devised by the Department of Personnel after having obtained the approval of competent authority. No Government employee can claim his transfer of posting as a matter of right. It will be the discretion of the State Government to post transfer any employee anywhere in the State keeping in view of the administrative exigencies/convenience.” 4. No doubt, careful perusal of order dated 05.03.2025 suggests that same has been passed in purported compliance of 2 order/judgment dated 30.12.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16344 of 2024, but bare perusal of the same nowhere suggests that direction was issued to transfer the petitioner from present place of posting to hard area, rather direction was issued to consider the representation filed by Anil Kumar in the CWP No. 16344 of 2024, if it is so, competent authority, while doing the needful in terms of mandate contained in the order/judgment dated 30.12.2024 was expected to see whether petitioner herein can be sent to hard area, while adjusting afore Anil Kumar pursuant to representation having been filed by him. Competent authority, while considering the representation filed by afore Anil Kumar, was expected to see the petitioner’s service record as well as provision contained in the transfer Policy. Since transfer policy itself bars the transfer of an employee, who has less than five years to retire, to hard area, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for competent authority to transfer the petitioner to hard area. 5. Consequently, in view of 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5), expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the 3 needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of Clause 12.1 of the Transfer Policy. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Till the time representation is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant order, petitioner herein shall not be compelled to join at transferred station. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4