IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3715 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar Goel …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since petitioner herein, who at present is working as Superintendent Grade-II in the Office of HPPWD Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has already completed his normal tenure of posting at present placing of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order dated 13.03.2025, whereby petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from HPPWD Division Paonta Sahib to HPPWD Division Shillai, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. However, having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is left with less than two years service and there is provision in the transfer policy not to transfer an employee having less than two years service to retire, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, for cancellation of his transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn ,shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon, taking note of Clause 16.1 of transfer policy, which provides that a person, who has crossed the age of 55 years shall not be transferred to a hard/remote area. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18,2025 (shankar)