IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.451 of 2026 Date of Decision: 9.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Deep Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) Jal Shakti Circle Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 1.12.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Jal Shakti Sub Division Kotla under Division Jawali, District Kangra. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh because petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at present place of posting. It has been further contended at the behest of the - 2 - petitioner that petitioner is otherwise about to retire within 2 years and five months. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 8.1.2026, issued by the Secretary (Jal Shakti) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner has already completed 1 year and 8 months at present place of posting and prior to his posting at present place, he remained posted in one district only i.e. Kangra. 4. Though having taken note of the facts, as have been noticed herein above, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he is due to retire within two years and five months, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within three days, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or his adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of his nearing retirement, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within - 3 - ten days. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy. Till the time, representation, if any filed within three dyas, is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall continue to work at present place of posting. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. January 9, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge