IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16284 of 2026 Decided on: 18th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parveen Kumar Rathour …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is serving as Principal in the respondent-Education Department. Currently, he is deployed in the office of the Deputy Director of School Education, Mandi. His grievance is to the office order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-2), whereunder, he has been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 transferred against the vacant post of Principal, GSSS Sari, District Mandi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is left with just about six months to superannuate. He is due to retire in March, 2027 and for that reason, seeks his adjustment at a place of his preference, as indicated in the representation dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-3 Colly.). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not yet joined at the transferred station. That the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.1/competent authority for his adjustment and the said authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Keeping in view the impending retirement of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.1/competent authority within a week from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicable transfer policy as 3 also petitioner’s impending retirement, within a week thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail leave of the kind due. It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioner does not prefer representation within the period indicated above, the limited protection made available to him under this order shall cease to have any effect after one week. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh