Amar Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amar Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without going into merits: respondents directed to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-10) expeditiously, preferably within ten days, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy; petitioner not to be compelled to join the transferred station until the representation is decided; liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging transfer order dated 20.5.2025 warrants interference, given that the petitioner had completed his normal tenure at the present posting, his daughter is disabled to the extent of 60%, and his representation for cancellation/adjustment remains pending before the competent authority.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-10) expeditiously, preferably within ten days.

Ratio / Principle

In deciding the representation, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order, taking note of the transfer policy.

Key takeaways

As asserted by the Court, the transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of disablement of his/her child.ratio¶14
Until the representation filed by the petitioner is decided by the competent authority, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA (Sandeep Sharma, J., Oral) — CWP No. 8527 of 2025, decided 22.5.2025. Amar Chand, Clerk at District Treasury Office Solan, challenged transfer order dated 20.5.2025 transferring him to Sub Treasury Moorang, District Kinnaur. Though he had fairly admitted completing his normal tenure, he pressed a pending representation (Annexure P-9; termed Annexure P-10 in the operative direction) for cancellation/adjustment, citing his daughter's 60% disablement and absence of a caretaker, indicating four preferred stations. With Sanjeev Kumar having joined at the transferred station and the petitioner relieved, the Court, without entering the merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within ten days, after affording hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, 'which certainly, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of disablement of his/her child'. Petitioner not to be compelled to join the new station until the representation is decided; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 8527 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.5.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Amar Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Clerk at District Treasury Office Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 20.5.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Sub Treasury Moorang, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Though it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but since daughter of the petitioner is disabled to the extent of 60% and there is none to take care of her, petitioner has filed

2 -

representation to the competent authority (Annexure P-9) for cancellation or adjustment, which is still pending adjudication.

3. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there is no scope left for interference, but representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided expeditiously.

4. Since person namely Sanjeev Kumar, has already joined at the transferred station and petitioner stands relieved, coupled with the fact that petitioner has filed representation, indicating therein four stations, where he can be accommodated, this Court without going into merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-10) expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of disablement of his/her child. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled

3 -

to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

May 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge