logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 HPHC 013 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Case No : CWP No. 1606 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
Parties : Sanjay Kumar Versus State of HP & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Prem P. Chauhan & Ayushi Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.
Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 HHC 3439,
Judgment :-

(Oral):

1. 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 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 has less than two years of service to superannuate. Under the prevailing transfer policy of the State, employees who have less 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 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 two weeks from the receipt of this order. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved against the decision, he is at liberty to approach 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal