CWP/21155/2025 of BHIM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21155 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhim Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Sarahan, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

account of his having completed normal tenure at present place of posting.

2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that mere factum of completion of normal tenure at one station may not be ground to seek transfer, rather it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station.

3. True it is that though it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once Transfer Policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already made representation to the competent authority, this Court, without going into the merits of the present, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 31, 2025 (Sunil)