Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.17479 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals.

¶6

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

Petitioners herein, who at present are working as JBTs at Government Primary School, Kartoo u/s Deothi Majhgaon, Education Block Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and Government Primary School, Salahri u/c Gahlian, Education Block Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide their pending representations (Annexure P-3 & P-4), whereby they have prayed for their mutual transfer.

¶8

Admittedly, petitioners herein have not completed minimum required period of posting in one District, enabling them to

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

seek transfer under 5 % inter-District quota, but once Clause 5 of the policy dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) clearly provides for transfer on mutual basis without there being condition of minimum tenure of five years, petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations, as detailed hereinabove, but since nothing was heard from their side, they approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶12

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that in terms of Clause 5 of Notification dated 20.11.2021, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for mutual transfer can be considered.

¶13

Consequently, in view of the above aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexures P-3 & P-4) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity

¶14

3

¶15

of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order, taking note of Clause 5 of notification dated 20.11.2021. Pending applications, if

¶16

any, also stand disposed of.

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 11,2025 (shankar)

Pradeep Kumar and Another v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and Another v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

Sudershan Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Devi Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs the State of Hp and Another

Radha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhim Chand Verma Vs the Hrtc and Another