Decided On : 03.02.2026 vs State Of Hp And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 603 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 03.02.2026 vs State Of Hp And Another on 3 February, 2026

    2026:HHC:3439




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                        CWP No. 1606 of 2026
                                                        Decided on : 03.02.2026




                                                                          .
    _______________________________________________________





    Sanjay Kumar                            ...Petitioner

                                               Versus





    State of HP and another              ...Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    _____




                                                of
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge

    Whether approved for reporting? 1
                      rt

    For the petitioner:                     Mr. Prem P. Chauhan and Ms. Ayushi
                                            Sharma, Advocates.

    For the respondents:                    Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate


                                            General, for respondents-State.

    Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, learned Deputy

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf

of respondents.

2. Keeping in view the order proposed to be passed in

the present writ petition, no reply is intended to be called from the

respondents.

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2026:HHC:3439

seeking direction to transfer him from GSSS Gaunth, Distt. Shimla

to any one of the vacant stations in District Solan, i.e., GSSS

Mandhala, Jharmajri, Nangal, Manjhol, Baruna or Kasauli.

.

4. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the

petitioner has completed his normal tenure of two years in hard

area on 18.12.2025. He has further stated in the petition that he

of has less than two years of service to superannuate. Under the

prevailing transfer policy of the State, employees who have less rt than two years to retire are generally accorded a station of their

convenience/choice to settle their post retirement life.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the

attention of this Court to the Transfer Policy dated 10.07.2013,

more particularly Clause 5.5, which reads as under:-

"5.5. Concession to officials likely to retire:

In case of Class-III and Class-IV officials likely to

retire within two years, as far as possible, should be posted in the convenient places/stations, subject to vacancy."

6. The policy framed by the Government stipulates that

as far as possible, Class-III and Class-IV officials should be posted

in the convenient places/stations, if they have less than two years

to retire.

7. Therefore, keeping in view the Transfer Policy, the

3 2026:HHC:3439

respondents have to adjudicate the representation of the

petitioner dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-1).

8. Since the representation dated 08.10.2025 made by

.

the petitioner is pending adjudication before respondent No.1,

respondent No.1 is directed to consider his representation in light

of the transfer policy, more particularly, Clause 5.5 within a period

of of two weeks from the receipt of this order. In case the petitioner

is still aggrieved against the decision, he is at liberty to approach rt this Court again.

9. In view of above, the instant writ petition is disposed

of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

accordingly.

    3rd February, 2026                   ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
            (mamta)                          Vacation Judge