2026:HHC:12851 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1400 of 2026 Decided on: 22.04.2026 Sh. Inderjeet … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the transfer order Annexure P-4, dated 20.01.2026, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred from HPPWD Division Karsog to HPPWD Division Seraj at Janjheli, District Mandi, H.P. in place of the private respondents, just after a stay of one year and two months at his present place of posting. 2. As the private respondent did put in appearance before the Court despite service, she has been proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 07.04.2026. As despite reasonable opportunities having been granted, no reply has been filed to the petition, on 16.04.2026, the following order was passed by the Court:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:12851 “Despite opportunities granted, reply to the petition has still not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that whereas the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting just after the completion of an year’s stay at the said station, there are people stationed in Karsog as pointed out in Para-10 of the petition, who are not been transferred despite their long stay at the said station. Learned Additional Advocate General to have specific instructions in this regard as to why the petitioner has been disturbed just after a stay of about 1 year and 2 months and why the private respondent was accommodated back to Karsog just after six months. List on 22.04.2026.” 3. Today, learned Advocate General has filed instructions dated 21.04.2026, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “I have the honor to invite your kind attention towards subject cited matter which has been ordered to be listed on 22.4.2026 before the Hon'ble High Court of HP. In this behalf it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has filed present writ petition against impugned transfer order dated 20.1.2026 Annexure P-4. In this behalf it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from HPPWD Division Karsog to HPPWD Division Seraj at Janjehli vice Smt. Indu Sharma respondent NO. 5 3 2026:HHC:12851 with prior approval of competent authority. So far as the directions passed by Hon'ble Court dated 16.4.2026 is concerned, it is submitted that the respondent NO. 5 smt. Indu Sharma has previously managed the DO note in respect of her transfer from HPPWD Division Karsog to HPPWD Division Seraj and as such she was transferred vide order dated 10.6.2025. Recently she has again managed the DO Note for her transfer from HPPWD Division Seraj to HPPWD Division Karsog. The matter was taken up with the competent authority and subsequently the petitioner has been transferred to HPPWD Division Seraj at Janjehli vide order dated 20.01.2026 Annexure P-4. You are, therefore, requested to kindly apprise the Hon'ble Court accordingly on the date of hearing and pray for at least four weeks further time to file reply on behalf of respondents please.” 4. In terms of the instructions, the stand of the respondents is that the transfer of the petitioner against the private respondent is on the basis of DO note. Therefore, as it is evident that the transfer of the petitioner is not due to administrative exigency or in public interest, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was disturbed after a stay of one year and two months at the present place of posting, this petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to complete 4 2026:HHC:12851 normal tenure at the present place of posting. As far as the private respondent is concerned, she be instructed to continue at the station at which she was serving before the issuance of the impugned transfer order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 22, 2026 (narender)