IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3528 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.03.2025 Roshan Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. : Mr. Rahul, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice is confined to respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Rahul, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, notice of this petition is not required to be issued to respondent No.3. 2. The case set-up is that petitioner was appointed as Daily Wager in respondent No.2-Horticulture Produce 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (‘HPMC’) in the year 1994. Services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2007 as Boiler Operator at FPP Jarol, District Mandi, H.P. In the year 2016, petitioner was transferred to Plant Head Fruit Processing Plant, Parwanoo, District Solan. Consequently, upon his promotion to Boiler Chargeman, petitioner was again transferred to Jarol in the year 2019. Petitioner has been now transferred from HPMC, FPP Jarol, District Mandi to HPMC, FPP Parala, District Shimla, vice respondent No.3 under impugned order dated 11.03.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Considering the fact that for most part of his service tenure, petitioner had been serving at FPP Jarol, District Mandi, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order transferring the petitioner from FPP Jarol, District Mandi. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is nearing retirement and he be permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 seeking his adjustment, whereafter, the competent authority/respondent No.2 be directed to consider and -3- decide the same in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. This is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In view of above, the petitioner at liberty to prefer a representation within four days from today. In case, such a representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of next ten days. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)