Disposed¶14

Khem Singh v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025CWP/16153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 16153 of 2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Sandeep Sharma J.; transfer policy; pending representation; Annexure P-3; normal tenure of posting; hard area to soft area; station of choice; TGT (Arts); GMS Thachadhar; GSSS Gadagusain; Education Block Seraj-II Balichowki; District Mandi; time bound decision; four weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; Government of Himachal Pradesh; service matter; direction to decide representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶14

Khem Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) seeking transfer under the Government transfer policy in a time-bound manner. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

This Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation(s) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court found, from the pleadings on record, that the petitioner had already completed his normal tenure at his present place of posting.ratio¶14
Per the Court, the transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from a hard area to a soft area or one of the stations of choice after completion of the normal tenure of posting, and the Court therefore saw no impediment in issuing the direction.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Khem Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., CWP No.16153 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decision dated 14.10.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J.) — The petitioner, working as TGT (Arts) at GMS Thachadhar u/c GSSS Gadagusain, Education Block Seraj-II, Balichowki, District Mandi, sought a direction to the respondents to decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3) praying for transfer in terms of the State transfer policy. Noting that the petitioner had already completed his normal tenure at his present place of posting and that the transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from a hard area to a soft area or a station of choice after completion of normal tenure, the Court, without calling for a reply, directed the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16153 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

¶3

Khem Singh

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GMS Thachadhar u/c GSSS Gadagusain Education Block Seraj-II, Balichowki, District Mandi, 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-3) in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his transfer in terms of transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh

¶11

2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar,

¶12

¶13

fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶14

3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area or one of the stations of choice after completion of normal tenure of posting, this court sees no impediment in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representations of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. 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 a speaking order taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶15

October 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Khem Singh v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khem Singh v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Reena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surender Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amandeep Kaushal Vs the State of Hp and Another

Shashi Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others