2026:HHC:3276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.918 of 2025 Decided on: 08 th January, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant : Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration is sought of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.17109 of 2025 titled Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 24.12.2025. By way of the said order, interference was declined regarding the order dated 28/29.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Director (Elementary Education), whereby the petitioner was transferred to GPS (Girls) Bijhari, Education Block Bijhari, from GPS Chowki Churan (E/B Nadaun). 2. The learned Single Judge was of the considered 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 opinion that the petitioner had remained posted within a radius of 20 kms for more than 30 years and that the place of transfer was situated on the roadside. Furthermore, in terms of the earlier directions issued, the case had been considered by the State. Consequently, there was no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order, and the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a matter of record that the petitioner is a disabled employee working as a JBT in the Education Department. Reference was made to his Disability Certificate to point out that it is a case of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 40% in relation to his left leg. 4. It is not disputed that on the earlier occasion, directions were issued in CWP No.16264 of 2025 titled Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, when the petitioner had been transferred firstly to the Primary School Dimmi EB Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, which is stated to be at a distance of more than 50 Kms. which would also be clear from the fact, that the petitioner himself, in pursuance of the said order, had made a representation dated 17.10.2025, requesting for an alternative station and had mentioned the places where the Head Teacher post was lying vacant. The said stations are as follows:- “That It is revealed to the worthy authority that the 3 post of Head Teacher is lying vacant at the below mentioned placed which are nearby to the petitioner home:- GPS, Amlehar, Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, HP, GPS, Tareti, Jalari, Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, HP GPS, Jeehan, Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, HP, as well as the previous station of the posting GPS Chowki Churan.” 5. It is thus contended that the place where the petitioner has now been posted by virtue of the order which was subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court, he has been further prejudiced. 6. A perusal of the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Director, School Education, H.P. would go on to show that now he has been sent to the Bijhari Girls (E/B Bijhari) which is stated to be a roadside station, but the contention raised is that it is approximately 60 km away. 7. We are thus of the considered opinion that while deciding the representation, the Director as such was to take into account the station which was closer in principle namely to Bhoranj at the first instance and by virtue of the said order, the petitioner cannot be put into a further disadvantage by posting him at farther place than Bhoranj also. Apparently, it is not disputed that he has a disability and therefore it would not be fair as such to post him at a further station only because he has agitated for his rights before this Court and directions have been issued to consider his case. 4 However, as pointed out by the counsel for the State that the options given by him as reproduced above were in close vicinity and would again bring him within the 20 kms radius which apparently cannot be acceded to, keeping in view the background as such as noticed by the learned Single Judge also that for the last 30 years he has always been within a radius of 20 kms. 8. In such circumstances, we partly allow the present appeal. Accordingly the Respondent Authority shall take a fresh call within a period of two weeks and post him at a station closer than Bhoranj, subject to the vacancy. 9. Keeping in view the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 08 th January, 2026 (ankit) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Judge