Allowed

Dinesh Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/16504/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Headmaster serving at a government school approximately 280 km from his native place, filed representations requesting transfer but they remained undecided. The High Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law and the applicable transfer policy within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representations (Annexures P-1 and P-2) within four weeks and communicate the decision.

Dinesh Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16504 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 21^st September, 2026

¶4

Dinesh Thakur …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant

¶15

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶17

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶18

3. Petitioner is serving as Headmaster at

¶19

Government High School Lalsa, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. His case is that he is due for superannuation on 30.09.2027. The present place of posting of the petitioner is

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

around 280 kilometers from his native place. On citing these factors and several other difficulties being faced by him, he preferred representations (Annexures P-1 and P-2) to the respondents. Petitioner’s grievance is that the aforesaid representations have not been considered and decided by the competent authority till date.

¶23

4. Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner (Annexures P-1 and P-2) in accordance with law and keeping in view the applicable transfer policy, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶25

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶26

any.

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶28

September 21, 2026 Mukesh

Dinesh Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Thakur v. the 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