Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6148 of 2025 Decided on: 2^nd June, 2025

Vineet Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

¶4

Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________ For the petitioner:	________________________________________ Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Ms. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Petitioner is serving as Forest Guard in the respondent-Forest Department. Vide office order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), he was transferred from Forest

¶10

Beat Uttam Wala, Block Shambhuwala, Range Nahan under Forest Division Nahan (Nahan Circle) to Forest Beat Tharu, Block Bakhog, Range Habban, under Forest Division Rajgarh (Nahan Circle).

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶12

2 -

¶13

2. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid transfer

¶14

order, petitioner instituted CWP No. 1739 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.03.2025 with directions to the respondent to consider and decide the representation preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid transfer order. Respondents considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected it on 13.03.2025 primarily on the ground that it is the discretion of the State Government to post/transfer any employee anywhere in the State keeping in view administrative exigency/convenience; The Government employee cannot claim his transfer or posting as a matter of right.

¶15

Feeling aggrieved against the transfer order dated 23.01.2025 and office order dated 13.03.2025, petitioner instituted this writ petition primarily on the grounds that: (i) Petitioner had completed just about two years at Forest Beat Uttam Wala Block Shambhuwala and; (ii) Petitioner had been transferred only on the basis of a D.O. note from the Member of Legislative Assembly, Nahan Constituency.

¶16

3. Upon considering the case of the petitioner and the grounds urged by him, operation of the impugned office

¶17

3 -

¶18

order dated 13.03.2025 (vide which petitioner’s

¶19

representation was rejected) was stayed on 11.04.2025.

¶20

4. Respondents have filed reply and do not dispute the fact of petitioner’s transfer having been effected on the basis of a D.O. note and that at his present place of posting, petitioner had completed just about two years’ service at the time of issuance of impugned transfer order dated 23.01.2025. In fact, alongwith the reply, respondents have also placed on record Annexure R-2, a loose noting sheet, a portion of which clearly reflects that respondents were very well aware about petitioner’s having not completed his stay at

¶21

the present place of posting and also the fact that he had been transferred on the basis of telephonic directions of the concerned MLA.

¶22

Since the grounds urged for by the petitioner have been vindicated, the petitioner has been transferred by the respondents without letting him complete his normal tenure at the place in question and only on the basis of a D.O note, without independent application of mind, the impugned transfer order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) and office order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained.

¶23