Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20091 (HP)

RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/4237/2026 · 2026-08-17

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:34542 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4237 of 202 6 Decided on: 17.08.2026 Ramesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “(i) To quash the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 qua the petitioner who is reflected as Serial No. 3 in the impugned order (Annexure P-1).” 2. When this case was listed on 08.04.2024, the following order was passed: “Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Reply, if any, within a period of four weeks. List on 12.05.2026. CMP No.6090 of 2026 Notice in above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-1, dated 25.03.2026 and has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:34542 present place of posting just after a stay of 2 years and 4 months and that too, to a station which is in tribal area ignoring the fact that the petitioner earlier also served in hard area. As the Court prima facie is of the view that the transfer of the petitioner without allowing him to complete his normal tenure is arbitrary, the operation of the transfer order qua the petitioner is hereby stayed. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue to serve at Tehsil Office Churah, District Chamba, H.P., de- hors whether he stands relieved or not. In other words, status quo ante, as it existed before the passing of the impugned transfer order dated 25.03.2026, shall be maintained.” 3. The Court today has been informed that the tenure of three years, as far as the petitioner is concerned, shall be complete in the month of October 2026. 4. In the light of this fact, this petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned transfer order of the petitioner, but with the observation that as soon as three years' tenure of the petitioner is complete at the present station, the Department shall be at liberty to transfer him, taking into consideration its administrative exigency. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 17 , 2026 (narender)