2026:HHC:35305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1678 of 2026 Decided on : 20.08.2026 Vijay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4 . Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “(i).That the impugned office order dated 31.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from PTC Daroh to State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau Shimla may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of transfer order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 ) he has been transferred from his present place of posting i.e PTC Daroh, District Kangra to State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:35305 stay of the petitioner at PTC Daroh was just 16 months when the impugned transfer order was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is a physically disabled person, who is suffering from 47% hearing impairment, as is evident from Annexure P-3. He further submitted that in light of these facts, the transfer of the petitioner without permitting him to complete his normal tenure at PTD Daroh is not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents as well as learned counsel for the private respondent have submitted that the petitioner before being posted at PTC Daroh was posted at Dharamshala and, in fact, he has been serving in District Kangra at Dharamshala and Daroh since December 2020. Learned counsel for private respondent has submitted that before this also, the petitioner has spent a substantial period at Daroh from 2012 to 2018. Learned counsel for the private respondent further submitted that the private respondent has also completed his normal tenure and now he has a right to be adjusted at the station to which he stands transferred. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned transfer order is not sustainable in law. 6. The petitioner has been transferred from PTC Daroh to Shimla without permitting him to complete his normal tenure of about 3 2026:HHC:35305 three years at the said station. Though it is a matter of record that before being transferred to Daroh, the petitioner was serving at Dharamshala, but then Dharmashala is not within a vicinity of 25 kms from Daroh, so as to enable the employer to club the stay of the petitioner at Daroh and Dharamshala to justify his transfer. 7. Besides this, it is evident from Annexure P-3 that the petitioner is a physically disabled person also. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner should have been allowed to complete at least a normal tenure of three years at Daroh and thereafter, he should have been transferred from the said station, however, not allowing him to complete his normal tenure at Daroh, in these circumstances, is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, transfer order dated 31.01.2026 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue at PTC Daroh as Senior Assistant till he completes his normal tenure of three years. Thereafter, he may be transferred to a station as per the administrative exigency of the Department, however, taking into consideration the factum of hearing impairment of the petitioner. 9. As prayed for by learned counsel for private respondent, the order passed in the present petition shall not come in the way of the Department to either post the private respondent at Daroh once the petitioner completes his tenure of three years and thereafter, the petitioner 4 2026:HHC:35305 will have to go to a station other station other than Daroh. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) August 20, 2026 (meera) Judge