IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1325 of 2026 Decided on 12th March, 2026 Monika …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: M/s Varun Thakur and Aakash Thakur, 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, who is serving as a Forest Range Officer, has assailed the transfer order Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, she has been transferred from her present place of posting i.e., Ladbharol to Forest Range Chail, under Forest Division Solan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was posted at her present place of posting in the month of August, 2024 and her transfer is a result of colourable 2 exercise of power to deter her from performing her duties, which she was performing diligently, on the receipt of a complaint of illicit felling of trees. Learned counsel further submitted that just to ensure that the petitioner does not take action against those involved in illicit felling, the impugned transfer order was passed without allowing her to complete a normal tenure at the said station and, therefore, the same be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocate General drew the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State and submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was effected on the approval of the Competent Authority and on account of the administrative exigency. He further submitted that the petitioner being a Class-II Officer, cannot claim any minimum stay and it is the prerogative of the employer to post her, wherever her services are required. He also submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was not an act of colourable exercise of power, but on account of administrative exigency and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed at Ladbharol only in the month of August, 2024. The petitioner has been transferred in terms of Annexure P-1, which order is dated 15.01.2026 i.e., after a stay of about 1 year and 4 months at her present place of posting. The issue herein is whether the petitioner stood transferred on account of justifiable reasons available with the employer or not. Whereas, the contention of the petitioner, as substantiated from the documents appended with the petition, is that she has been transferred only because she was taking action against those involved in illicit felling of trees on the basis of a complaint received by her, the stand of the State is that the transfer was with the approval of the Competent Authority and in public interest. 4 6. As the averments made by the petitioner in Para-5 and 6 of the petition to this effect have not been satisfactorily rebutted in the reply, therefore, there appears to be merit in the contention of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner is on account of colourable exercise of power, rather than any administrative exigency. 7. This Court observes that of course, it is the prerogative of the employer to post its employees at a station, where the services of the employee can be best utilized and if the circumstance so warrants, transfer can be effected irrespective of the tenure of the employee, but then, said exercise should not only be a bonafide exercise, but the reasons as to why the said transfer is being effected, if not mentioned in the transfer order, at least should be borne out from the record. 8. In the present case, as there is nothing to substantiate that the transfer indeed was in public interest and further as the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the petition, which lead to her transfer, have not been rebutted in the reply, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that 5 the impugned transfer order was not passed due to administrative exigency or in public interest, but for extraneous reason. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to perform her duties at Forest Range Ladbharol for a reasonable tenure. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 12, 2026 (Vinod)