IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13780 of 2026 Decided on: 12 .08 .2026 Rahul Kumar Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondent- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajpal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of said respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by transfer order Annexure P- 4, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from Forest Range, Amb under Una Forest Division to Forest Range, Majra under Forest Division, Paonta Sahib. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting just after a stay of 1 year and 7 months and the transfer is nothing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 but an act of colourable exercise of power as the order has been issued just to adjust the private respondent. 4. On a query put to the learned Counsel as to where the petitioner was serving before his posting at Amb, he informed the Court that the petitioner before his transfer to Amb was serving in Forest Range, Una, under Forest Division, Una, where he served from the month of June 2022 up to March 2023. He also informed the Court that the transfer of the petitioner from Forest Range, Una to Forest Range, Amb, was on his request, in condonation of short stay and in relaxation of the ban on transfers. However, he has reiterated that the present transfer of the petitioner from the present place of posting is bad as the petitioner has been transferred without permitting him to complete his normal tenure and the order has been passed just to adjust the private respondent. 5. This Court is of the considered view that one who seeks equity has to give equity. It is evident from Annexure P-2 that after serving in Forest Range, Una, under Forest Division, Una, the petitioner, on his request, was adjusted in Forest Range, Amb, which is again under Forest Division, Una. Now simply because someone else has been adjusted on his request, which has resulted in the transfer of the petitioner from Amb to Majra in Forest Division, 3 Paonta Sahib, the petitioner cannot question the act of the respondents of issuing a transfer order to adjust the private respondent. The petitioner having enjoyed a stay of more than 4 years in Forest Division, Una, now has to give way to someone else and this is more so, in the light of the fact that the petitioner is a 33 year-old man, who is holding a State Cadre post. 6. Therefore, in the light of above observations, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned transfer order, the Court is not interfering with the same. However, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent Authority for his adjustment at some other place. The petitioner is at liberty to do so. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner within one week from today, let appropriate orders be passed thereupon within two weeks thereafter. Till then, the petitioner shall not be forced to join the transferred station/new place of posting. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12 , 2026 (narender)