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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording him an opportunity of being heard and taking note of his ill-health and the care needs of his 80-year-old mother; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has not completed normal tenure at his present place of posting, is entitled to seek transfer as prayed for in the petition. +1 more

Court's answer

Though the petitioner has not completed normal tenure at his present place of posting, the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on account of adverse family circumstances and medical grounds; hence there is no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, and ordered accordingly.

Key takeaways

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders taking note of the fact that the petitioner is unwell and there is none to take care of his 80-year-old mother, who resides at his native place.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.16787 of 2025, decided 29.10.2025 — Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral order): Rajiv Kumar, working as Superintendent Grade-I, Government College, Beetan, District Una, sought a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3) praying for transfer from his present station on account of adverse family circumstances and medical grounds. The respondents' Additional Advocate General stated that, having not completed normal tenure, the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer sought. Holding that although normal tenure was incomplete, the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on such grounds, the Court found no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, while affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and taking note of the fact that he is unwell and there is none to take care of his 80-year-old mother residing at his native place. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16787 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025

Rajiv Kumar

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Superintendent Grade-I, Government College, Beetan, District Una, 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) , whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of adverse family circumstances as well as on medical grounds.

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call

2

for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure, he is not entitled to seek transfer as has been prayed for in the instant petition.

Though this Court finds that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but since Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment from one station to another on account of adverse family circumstances as well as on medical grounds, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) 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 fact that petitioner is unwell and there is none to take care of his 80 years old mother, who at present is residing at the native place of the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

October 29, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge