IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3999 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yog Raj …….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. Vinay Mehta, 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): Through instant petition, petitioner herein, who at present is working as Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) in the Office of Project Director, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has laid challenge to order dated 18.03.2025, whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from the Office of PD, ATMA, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinay Mehta, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present placing of posting, coupled with the fact that he is suffering from Kidney tumor, respondents ought not have transferred him to hard area. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse averments contained in the petition, vehemently argued that petitioner has remained posted throughout in the vicinity of District Mandi and as such, he is estopped from claiming that he has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. He states that prior to his posting in the Office of PD, ATMA Mandi, petitioner remained posted at Sundernagar, which is at a distance of 21 KM. However, learned Additional Advocate General having taken note of ailment of the petitioner, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for cancellation of transfer or adjustment on medical grounds shall be considered in accordance with transfer policy. 4. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained posted in and around Mandi District for considerable time, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the transfer order, however having taken note of medical condition of the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the 3 present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week thereafter. 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, taking note of transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, which specifically provides for transfer/ adjustment of an employee on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week, is not decided by the competent authority, he shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, if private respondent has not already joined. 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 21, 2025 (shankar)