IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.411 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Prakash Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, 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 driver in HPPWD (B&R) Division Chenab Valley, Udaipur, District Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to transfer him to one of the stations of choice on account of the fact that he is left with less than two years to retire. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who states that petitioner has only completed nine months in hard area and as such, - 2 - cannot claim posting of choice. He states that as far as issue with regard to petitioner’s retirement within two years, he has never approached the competent authority and as such, present petition being premature deserves dismissal. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner was appointed as driver in HPPWD (B&R) Division Chenab Valley, Udaipur, District Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh nine months back and as such, he cannot claim to have completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, however, having take note of clause 16.1 of the Transfer Policy, this court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner who is said to retire within less than two years, could not have been transferred to hard/tribal area, rather should have been given posting at one of the stations of choice. 4. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within one week, praying therein for his adjustment at convenient station on the ground of his nearing retirement, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of - 3 - hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of clause 16.1 of the transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. January 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge