IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1105 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sangharsh Saini ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned office order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation filed by the petitioner, in terms order dated 11.11.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.17473 of 2025, titled as Sangharsh Saini Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., came to be rejected on the ground that he has not completed normal tenure of posting. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tek Chand, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that vide order/judgment dated 11.11.2025 passed in CWP No.17473 of 2025, this Court had directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of adverse family circumstances indicated therein, but competent authority, while deciding the same, side-tracked from the issue of adverse family circumstances raised at the behest of the petitioner, rather proceeded to reject the representation on the ground that he has not completed normal tenure of posting. 3. Having carefully perused order dated 07.01.2026 passed in purported compliance of the order/judgment dated 11.11.2025, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, had relegated the petitioner to the competent authority for filing representation, with a further direction to the competent authority to decide the same in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, there was no occasion, if any, for the authority concerned to reck up the issue of completion of normal tenure of posting. Though petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting and is otherwise eligible to be transferred to another station, however, in peculiar facts and circumstances, his prayer for transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation ought to have been considered by the respondents/competent authority. 2 4. In view of the above, present application is allowed and impugned office order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as adverse family circumstances detailed in the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. While doing the needful, competent authority may also take note of the fact that one post of Assistant Professor (Tour and Travel) is stated to be laying vacant at Government Degree College Dhaliara, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 09, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3