Decided On: 27.02.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1219 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 27.02.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                                             2026:HHC:4885

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                             CWP No.2200 of 2026
                             Decided on: 27.02.2026
    Ashok Kumar                                     ... Petitioner




                                                                          .
                        Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and another           ... Respondents
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes





    ____________________________________________________          _
    For the petitioner:      Mr. Pawanish K. Shukla, Advocate.
    For the respondents:     Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate




                                               of
                             General.
    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate rt General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-4, dated

23.08.2025, in terms whereof, representation of the petitioner has

been rejected by the Authority concerned, which was filed by the

petitioner feeling aggrieved by his transfer from GSSS Kashmaila,

District Mandi, H.P. to GSSS Deothi, District Solan, H.P.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that that the

rejection of the representation of the petitioner is bad in law, for the

reason that the Authorities concerned erred in not appreciating that

the case of the petitioner being a couple case he could not have been

disturbed from the placed where he was earlier posted. Learned

Counsel also argued that as the petitioner has been transferred on a

D.O. Note, therefore also, the transfer order is bad in law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General

has taken the Court through the contents of the order passed by the

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2026:HHC:4885

Authority and submitted that the order is self-speaking as to why

the representation has been rejected and further in light of the fact

.

that the petitioner was transferred after the completion of normal

tenure at Kashila, he cannot make any grievance of his transfer from

the said station.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also

of the learned Assistant Advocate General and having perused the

order under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that there

is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same.

rt

6. First of all, it is not understood as to why the rejection of

the representation which took place in the month of August, 2025,

was not immediately assailed by the petitioner if he indeed was

aggrieved by the same. He chose to file this petition only in the

month of February, 2026, which demonstrates that filing of the

petition is nothing, but an afterthought.

7. Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that the

petitioner is serving a State Cadre Post and he has now been

transferred from Kashmaila, District Mandi, H.P., to GSSS Deothi,

District Solan, H.P., the petition is bound to serve at the said station

also, as simply because his wife is also an employee of the

respondents-Government, this does not confers any indifisible right

upon the couple to continue to serve at the station of their choice. In

terms of the Transfer Policy of the State, in couple cases the

endeavour of the State has to be to ensure that their postings are

2026:HHC:4885

contiguous, but it is not as if any vested right is conferred upon the

couple that the State or the Department is bound to post them at

.

the same or contiguous station. The Department of course has to

take into consideration its administrative exigencies as also public

interest and the same cannot be sub-servant to the personal interest

of the employees. Moreover, nothing stops the wife of the petitioner

of or the petitioner or both of them to make a joint representation to

the Authority that in light of the transfer of the petitioner to GSSS

Deothi, District Solan, H.P., the wife of the petitioner be either rt posted at the same station or some other station contiguous to it.

8. Accordingly, this petition petition is dismissed without

interfering with the impugned order, but with the observation that

the rejection of this petition shall not come in the way of the

petitioner or his wife in approaching the Authority for their being

posted at a place nearby to the place of posting of them. The Court is

making this observation, for the reason that during the course of

arguments of this case, one of the points argued before this Court

was that the wife of the petitioner is suffering with Hepatitis-B, on

account whereof, she has to be taken to PGI, Chandigarh every

month. As the petitioner presently stands transferred to District

Solan, which District is closed to the PGI, Chandigarh, therefore, if

any request is received by the Authority with regard to the transfer of

the wife of the petitioner and there indeed is a medical condition, the

Authorities may sympathetically consider the said request. Pending

2026:HHC:4885

miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of

accordingly.

.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge February 27, 2026 (Rishi)

of rt