Hans Raj Vs State of Hp and Another

“That the order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2, being unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and contrary to the transfer policy and Fundamental Rules may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the respondents may please be directed to allow the petitioner to work as Patwar Circle, Hawani, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi H.P.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order,

¶15

i.e., office order dated 25.03.2026, (Annexure P-1), wherein, his

¶16

name is reflected at serial No.12, in terms whereof, he has

¶17

been transferred as Patwari from Patwar Circle Hawani, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. to Patwar Circle Poshna, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu against vacancy.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶19

the apprehension of the petitioner is that, as after the conversion of the cadre of Patwaris into State Cadre vide notification dated 07.02.2025, the principles which shall be guiding the service conditions of Patwaris have till date not been finalized, in these circumstances, in case the petitioner joins at Kullu, he is not sure whether his service interests shall be protected vis-à-vis the past service rendered by him or not.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that as the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting and has been transferred to Kullu, since the post of Patwari has now been declared a State Cadre post, the petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is totally misconceived, because, neither any decision has been taken nor any decision would be taken, which may adversely affect

¶21

the service conditions or interest of the petitioner.

¶22

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-5, which is a communication addressed by Director Land Records, Himachal Pradesh and submitted that it is not clear that in case the petitioner joins at Kullu, as to whether his pay will be released or not.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶24

have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the tenure of the petitioner at the present place of posting is complete and further as the post of Patwari is a State Cadre post now, there is no illegality per se in the transfer of the petitioner from District Mandi to District Kullu.

¶26

As far as the apprehension of the petitioner that if

¶27

he joins at Kullu, his service conditions may be adversely affected after the said post has been declared as a State Cadre post, is misconceived. Patwari is a Patwari irrespective of whether he is serving in District Mandi or District Kullu. It is not the case of the petitioner that in twelve Districts in the State of

¶28

Himachal, the terms and conditions of the service of Patwaris are different. These posts earlier were District Cadre posts, but,

¶29

fact of the matter is that the terms and conditions of service of Patwaris in all the District were same and similar. Besides this,

¶30

in case after joining at Kullu, any decision is taken by the Authorities which adversely affects the interest of the petitioner,

¶31

he can always approach the Authorities or the appropriate

¶32

Court of law to safeguard his interest.

¶33