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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) seeking transfer expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording him an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide, in a time bound manner, the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) seeking transfer to a station of choice. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the completed tenure at a hard-area station and the transfer policy, the Court saw no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation(s) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found it quite apparent from the duly affidavit-supported pleadings that the petitioner had already completed normal tenure at Lohardi (Choota Bhangal area), a hard area, and noted that the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or a station of choice after completion of normal tenure of posting, i.e. three summers and two winters.

Key takeaways

The authority dealing with the representation shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.16173 of 2025, decided 14.10.2025 (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral): A Shastri (TGT Sanskrit) posted at GMS Polling u/c GSSS Lohardi, District Kangra — a hard area where he had completed normal tenure (three summers and two winters) — sought a direction to decide his pending transfer representation (Annexure P-3). No reply was called for, as the State, represented through learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Vishal Panwar, stated the representation, if not already decided, would be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. Observing that the petitioner had completed normal tenure at a hard-area station and that the Government of Himachal Pradesh transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or a station of choice after normal tenure, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order with reference to the transfer policy. Petition allowed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16173 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

Amandeep Kaushal

……...Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

…....Respondents

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

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.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri (TGT Sanskrit) at GMS Polling u/c GSSS Lohardi, District Kangra, 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 from afore station to one of the stations of choice as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting.

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.

2 -

Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at Lohardi (Choota Bhangal area), which is a hard area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or one of the stations of his/her choice after completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. three summers and two winters, this court sees no impediment in 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.

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