IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 18009 of 2026. Decided on : 8 th October , 2026 Dinesh Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raja Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Petitioner is serving as Junior Office Assistant (IT) in Sainik Welfare Department. His grievance is to the office order dated 03.10.2026 whereunder he has been transferred from the office of Deputy Director, Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Chamba, to the office of Deputy Director, Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Hamirpur, vice respondent No.3, who has been brought in place of petitioner from Hamirpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had rendered 18 years and 9 months of service in Indian Army. He is the only male member in his family. His parents suffer from old age related ailments. Therefore, he should be permitted to continue to serve in the office of Deputy Director, Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Chamba. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Heard and considered the case file. 3. To a query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that as an ex-serviceman, petitioner had been given the benefit of his past service for his civil employment against the post reserved for ex-servicemen and his pay as an ex-serviceman has also been protected. 4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was appointed as JOA (IT) on contract basis on 22.05.2017 and as such was posted in the Zila Sainik Welfare office at Chamba. His services were regularised on 01.10.2020 and he continued to remain posted at Chamba. It thus is evident that petitioner has served for last about more than 9 years only at one station, that is Chamba. Petitioner belongs to State cadre. Having accepted civil employment in the State, he is required to serve elsewhere as well. In the given facts, I do not find any justification to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 8th October, 2026. (jai)