IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5348 of 2026 Decided on 17th April, 2026 Kamal Kishore …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Y.K. Thakur and Bhanu Verma Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “Quash and set aside the transfer order and corrigendum dated 09.04.2026, Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2. ii. With a further prayer that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to continue to serve at his present place of posting at Kanungo in Circle Bhawarna, Sub-Tehsil Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P. in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer orders, in terms whereof, he was earlier vide office order dated 09.04.2026, Annexure P-1, transferred from FK Circle Bhawarna, Sub-Tehsil Bhawarna, District Kangra to FK Circle Andretta, Tehsil Panchrukhi, District Kangra against vacancy and then vide Annexure P-2 i.e., corrigendum of even date, he stands transferred to Record Room, office of SDO(C) Jaisinghpur. 3. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Court has been informed that the petitioner was posted at Bhawarna in the month of October, 2023 and before that since the year 2021 he was serving at Jaisinghpur. Before Jaisinghpur, the petitioner is stated to be serving at Lambagaon. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all these stations are within a vicinity of 10 to 15 kilometers from each other. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has been serving within a close vicinity of 15 to 20 kilometers for almost a decade and presently also his transfer is just to a station which is hardly 10 to 15 kilometers from his present place of posting, 3 the same cannot be said to be harsh. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is on the verge of superannuation has no bearing, as far as this case is concerned, because, it is not as if the petitioner has been transferred to a station hundreds of kilometers away from his present place of posting. He has just been accommodated at a distance of 10 to 15 kilometers. 6. In light of this fact, as this Court does not find any merit in the petition, more so in light of the fact that now the petitioner is holding a State Cadre post, this petition is dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 17, 2026 (Vinod)