2026:HHC:23141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 182 of 2026 Decided on : 16.06.2026 Pradeep Singh Tomar …Appellant Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Anamika Kohali and Ganesh Barowalia, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4 G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) Consideration is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4041 of 2026, titled Pradeep Singh Tomar Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 30.03.2026. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, whereby the transfer order dated 23.03.2026 had been challenged, had come to the conclusion that the transfer from Government College Paonta Sahib, Sirmour to Government College, Nahan, Sirmaur, was 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23141 justified, since the normal tenure as such, of more than three years at the said station had expired on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics). The employee was holding a State Cadre post and, therefore, his transfer from Government College Paonta Sahib, Sirmour to Government College, Nahan, Sirmaur, which is just at a distance of about 40 Kilometers, could not be called as arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. In the present appeal, an argument was raised on 09.04.2026 that there is no reference of T.A/D.A in the transfer order and the private respondent had ensured his transfer at Paonta Sahib in place of the appellant and reference was made that a 9 year old child of the appellant as such, was suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and studying at a Special School at Paonta Sahib. The necessary affidavit has also been filed in support of the condition of the child, subsequently. 3. Counsel for the State has produced before us the record to demonstrate that wrong pleadings as such were made, as per argument raised on above-said basis in the writ Court and also before us, that the writ petitioner had never given his consent nor submitted his request for mutual transfer, which is clear from Paragraph No. 13 and Ground 17 (A) of the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge. 3 2026:HHC:23141 4. Perusal of the record would go on to show that apparently the private respondent on 31.01.2026 had submitted a representation for mutual transfer against the present appellant on the ground that the appellant could be adjusted at Government Degree College, Anj Bhoj, and he could be transferred from Nahan to Paonta Sahib. A similar request dated 29.01.2026, had also given by the present appellant to the Chief Minister of the State. 5. Counsel for the State has clarified that since there are not enough students at Anj Bhoj, he was adjusted at the closest station, which is Nahan and it was in such circumstances, the transfer order shows that there was no T.A/D.A and it was on consent by both the employees after having completed the necessary period of posting at their respective places. 6. Counsel for the appellant again has argued that the appellant had never given his consent for his transfer to Nahan. 7. We are of the considered opinion that once there is not even a whisper in the writ petition that he had given his consent for his transfer to an adjoining station on the basis of which there was a mutual consent between the employees, there has been concealment of fact and the appellant is not liable to be heard on merit of the case. 4 2026:HHC:23141 8. It is the settled principle that the issues of transfer are totally discretionary and only if arbitrary and malafide decision is taken, then, the Writ Court would interfere. 9. Once the discretion is with this Court and it is found that the appellant as such has specifically concealed the material facts, we do not find any plausible reason why we should exercise our discretionary power in favour of such a litigant, who is only wasting the Court time. 10. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge, therefore, the present appeal, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 16, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)