Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7207 of 2025
Date of Decision:02.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Rajender Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT in
GPS, Khajiyar, Education Block, Sataun, is aggrieved of impugned
transfer order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has
been ordered to be transferred to afore station to GPS Rast,
Education Block, Shillai against vacancy in condonation of short stay
and in relaxation of ban on transfer.
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, thereby transferring
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the petitioner from one station to other has been issued on the basis
of D.O. Note, issued by Hon'ble Minister of Industries.
3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order
proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply
on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr.
Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned
Additional Advocate General states that once it is apparent from the
pleadings itself that petitioner has already completed his normal
tenure of posting at present place of posting, he is not entitled for the
relief, as prayed for in the instant petition.
4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition,
which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner
is posted at present place of posting w.e.f.28.07.2022, meaning
thereby, he has almost completed his normal tenure of three years, if
it is so, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed by
the respondents, while ordering his transfer. Otherwise also, there is
no material adduced on record suggestive of the fact that impugned
transfer order has been issued on extraneous grounds. Though, there
is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer is based upon D.O. Note,
issued by the Hon'ble Minister, as detailed hereinabove, but even
otherwise, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Hon'ble Minister
belongs to District Sirmour and he is legal representative of the same
constituency, if it is so, he was otherwise well within his rights to
initiate proposal for transfer of an employee. Though, having taken
note of afore facts, there appears to be no justification to interfere in
the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld.
5. Having taken note of the documents adduced on record
by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that mother of the petitioner is
unwell and there is none to take care of her, this Court deems it fit to
dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file
representation to the competent authority within a period of one week,
praying therein of his adjustment at some nearby station, enabling
him to take care of his ailing mother, which in turn, shall be decided
by competent authority within a period of ten days. Ordered
accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon, taking
note of the transfer policy. Till the time representation, if any, filed by
the petitioner within a period of one week, is not decided by the
competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the
transferred station, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 02,2025
(shankar)
