Dinesh Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7575 of 2025

Date of Decision: 20.08.2025

____________________________________ Dinesh Sharma	___________________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others	… Respondents
____________________________________ Coram:	___________________

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) at HPPWD Division-2, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-3),whereby he has been transferred from afore station to HPPWD, B&R Division, Bharwain, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in place of Sh. Tilak Raj, respondent No.5.

¶7

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though petitioner

¶8

has not completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

posting, but yet with a view to adjust private respondent, he has been transferred to Bharwain, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which is at a distance of more than 100 Km from the present place of posting that too on the basis of D.O. note issued by the extra constitutional authority.

¶12

Besides filing reply to the petition, respondent-State has also filed a supplementary affidavit in terms of order dated 22.07.2025, giving therein details of incumbency of the private respondent in District Bilaspur and other stations. Bare perusal of the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as reply thereto, clearly suggests that petitioner though remained posted at Bilaspur for some time, but also served in other districts including tribal areas. However, supplementary affidavit filed in terms of order dated 22.07.2025 clearly reveals that private respondent has been serving in District Bilaspur from the date of his initial appointment against the post of Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Vide order dated 28.04.2025, private respondent was transferred from HPPWD Division, Ghumarwin to HPPWD Division, Bharwain, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, but he after having procured DO note from some extra constitutional authority, succeeded in getting himself adjusted at HPPWD Division-2, Bilaspur against the petitioner, who was posted at afore station in March, 2024.

¶13

3

¶14

Though, it has been stated at the behest of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that petitioner was posted at HPPWD Division, Bilaspur as well as various stations on his request and his transfer from Bilaspur to Bharwain has been effected on administrative grounds but definitely not on the basis of D.O. Note issued by extra constitutional authority, but once it is not in dispute that prior to petitioner’s posting at HPPWD Division, Bilaspur, petitioner was working at HPPWD Division Karcham, District Kinnaur, which is a hard area, he was very much entitled to be posted at one of the stations of his choice i.e. HPPWD Division-2, Bilaspur. Since it is quite apparent from the supplementary affidavit filed by Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh dated 19.08.2025 that private respondent remained posted throughout in District Bilaspur and prior to issuance of impugned transfer order, he was transferred to Bharwain, but subsequently he got himself adjusted at petitioner’s place, coupled with the fact that petitioner is yet to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court finds that case at hand is a fit case where impugned transfer order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) needs to be interfered with.

¶15

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure

¶16

4

¶17

P-3) is quashed and set-aside, as a result thereof, petitioner shall be permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at HPPWD Division-2, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and respondents would be at liberty to post private respondent at a convenient station as per requirement. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶19

August 20,2025 (shankar)

Dinesh Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Sharma 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghananand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ankita Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghansham Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nuram Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.