Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16833 (HP)

Raman Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-03

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order (Annexure P-3) dated 22.12.2025, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred as Superintendent Grade-II, from GSSS Mubarkpur, District Una to GSS Jahalma, District Lahaul & Spiti. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Mubarkpur from GSSS Nalsua, District Kangra by way of adjustment after cancelling his transfer to District Sirmour, but now in terms of the impugned order, the petitioner who had joined at Mubarkpur only in the month of June, 2025, has not been allowed to serve at the station for a normal tenure of three to five years. Accordingly, learned Counsel submitted that as the impugned order is per se bad, the petition be allowed by quashing the same. 3. Learned Advocate General has referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that the petitioner since his posting in the month of October, 2000, has been serving at the stations contiguous to each other. He further submitted that Nalsua was hardly 14 to 15 Kilometers away from Mubarkpur. He also submitted that a perusal of the memo of parties demonstrates that the petitioner is a resident of Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and all the stations which are mentioned in the reply depicting the stay of the petitioner are contiguous to Dhaliara and none of the stations is more than 15 to 20 Kilometers from Dhaliara. 4. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner is serving against a State Cadre post, he cannot make any grievance qua his transfer from Mubarkpur, to Jahalma, District Lahaul & Spiti, which transfer has been ordered by the Authority by clubbing the previous stays of the petitioner. 5. It is evident from the reply, to which there is no rebuttal that for more than twenty five years, the petitioner has been accommodated by the Authorities at the stations of his choice. That being the case, the petitioner owes at least this much to the Department that he should go and serve other station also for some reasonable time. It is evident from the reply, to which there is no rebuttal that for more than twenty five years, the petitioner has been accommodated by the Authorities at the stations of his choice. That being the case, the petitioner owes at least this much to the Department that he should go and serve other station also for some reasonable time. The contention of the petitioner that he stands transferred to a tribal area and, therefore, the transfer is bad, is also worth rejection, for the reason that tribal area also has to be served by some incumbent and it is not as if posting to a tribal area by way of transfer is a punishment. The people of tribal area also deserve to be served and if on the plea of posting to a tribal area, every such order is to be interfered by the Court, then there will be a situation where the Government will be having no incumbent to be posted in tribal areas or only the employees who belong to tribal areas would be serving in said areas. This is neither in the interest of the State per se or the employees nor in the interest of general administration, because this Court is of the considered view that an employee who holds a State Cadre Post, should be willing and should be posted at different stations in the State, including tribal areas. 6. In light of above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.