Disposed¶¶11

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Hp

Service Law – Transfer

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Nov 2025CWP/17645/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.17645 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 13.11.2025 by Sandep Sharma, J. (oral) — transfer representation; TGT (Arts), GHS Balahra, complex GSSS Lahru, District Kangra; completion of normal tenure; couple case; wife posted at GSSS Tal, District Hamirpur; Himachal Pradesh Transfer Policy — minimum tenure of three years; employer's posting prerogative; direction to respondents to consider and decide representation within four weeks after hearing; petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending transfer representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶¶11

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) seeking transfer from his present place of posting to a station of his choice, on the ground of completion of normal tenure of posting as well as couple case. +1 more

¶¶5

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the present petition with a direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station and enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case; this formed the basis for directing consideration of the representation without going into the merits.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

It is the sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular station.obiter¶¶11
The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders.ratio¶¶11
In deciding the representation, the authority is to take note that the petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at his present place of posting.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Transfer – Representation for transfer on completion of normal tenure and couple case – Petitioner, TGT (Arts) at GHS Balahra, complex GSSS Lahru, District Kangra, sought directions to respondents to decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer to a station of his choice on grounds of completion of normal tenure and couple case; his wife, a Government employee, is posted at GSSS Tal, District Hamirpur. Court, without going into merits, acknowledged that posting at a particular station is the employer's sole prerogative, but noted that the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station and enables employees to seek transfer/adjustment on couple case ground; disposed of the petition directing respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Held: disposal with time-bound direction to decide representation (Paras 5, 10, 11).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.17645 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025

¶3

__________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GHS Balahra, complex GSSS, Lahru, District Kangra, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of completion of normal tenure of posting as well as couple case.

¶6

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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Mr. Chauhan states that mere completion of normal tenure of posting at

¶10

one station does not entitle an employee to seek transfer, rather in that regard, sole prerogative is of an employer to post an employee at a particular station, as per requirement.

¶11

True it is that it is the sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, itself provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station and it also enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner 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 of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of the fact that petitioner has not only completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but his wife, who is also Government employee, is presently posted at GSSS Tal, District Hamirpur, H.P.

¶12

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

November 13, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Hp

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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joginder Pal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Avesh Stan and Ors. Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Ors.

Karam Chand Vs Hrtc and Another

Keshav Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others