Allowed

Mast Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/15187/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Health Educator due to retire in seven months, challenged his transfer from CH Markand to CHC Tikker ordered on 17.08.2026. The court, considering his impending superannuation and the allegation that the transfer resulted from repeated D.O. notes, quashed the transfer order and directed the respondents to allow him to continue at CH Markand until his retirement on 30.04.2027.

What did the court decide?

Impugned office order dated 17.08.2026 quashed; petitioner directed to continue at CH Markand, District Bilaspur till superannuation on 30.04.2027.

Mast Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15187 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 18^th September, 2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mast Ram …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Petitioner is serving as Health Educator in the respondent-Health Department. His grievance is to the office order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2, transferring him from CH Markand, District Bilaspur to CHC Tikker, District Shimla against a vacant post, without TTA/JT.

¶13

2. Petitioner has assailed the transfer primarily on the ground that he is due to superannuate on 30.04.2027,

¶14

therefore, he should not be disturbed at the fag end of his

¶15

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶16

¶17

service career. An additional ground has been taken that the impugned office order is the result of repeated D.O. notes issued by respondent No.4.

¶18

3. Keeping in view petitioner’s impending superannuation in about seven months, while issuing notice of this writ petition on 01.09.2026 and staying the operation of the impugned office order, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to have instructions for letting the petitioner to continue to serve at the same place till his superannuation. Pursuant thereto, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 17.09.2026, conveying that the petitioner belongs to State cadre and his transfer has been ordered on the approval of the competent authority after completion of more than five years of stay at CH Markand, District Bilaspur. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that in view of the office instructions, no reply is required to be filed by the respondents.

¶19

4. Even though the petitioner has completed more than five years of stay at CH Markand, District Bilaspur, yet, in the given facts and circumstances, keeping in view the grounds urged by the petitioner, i.e. his impending retirement on 30.04.2027 and his transfer being result of

¶20

¶21

repeated D.O. notes, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the impugned office order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue at CH Markand, District Bilaspur till his superannuation on 30.04.2027.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶23

any.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Mast Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mast Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases