Allowed¶9

Sachin Pathak v. the State of Hp Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2026CWP/89/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; CWP No.89 of 2026; Sachin Pathak v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; decided 02.01.2026; Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral); Ayurvedic Medical Officer at AAM Peukar, District Lahaul & Spiti (tribal/hard area); direction to decide pending transfer representation (Annexure P-1) within four weeks; normal tenure two winters and three summers; HP Government Transfer Policy; transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or station of choice; opportunity of hearing; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording him an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders in light of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer Policy; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Sachin Pathak Vs the State of Hp Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) praying for his transfer from the present place of posting on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure in a hard/tribal area. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Coupled with the fact that the Transfer Policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee who has completed normal tenure in a hard/tribal area to seek transfer to a soft area or a station of choice, the Court saw no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

From the pleadings and documents adduced on record it was quite apparent that the petitioner had already completed normal tenure at his present place of posting, which is a hard/tribal area.

¶9

Key takeaways

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, is to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders taking note of the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the observations made hereinabove.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil writ petition (CWP No. 89 of 2026, decided 02.01.2026) in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla by Sachin Pathak, Ayurvedic Medical Officer posted at AAM Peukar, District Lahaul & Spiti (tribal area), seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1) praying for transfer from his present posting on the ground that he had already completed normal tenure in a hard/tribal area. Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral), finding it quite apparent from the pleadings and record that the petitioner had completed normal tenure, and noting that the Transfer Policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee who has completed normal tenure (two winters and three summers) in a hard/tribal area to seek transfer to a soft area or a station of choice, saw no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, subject to affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders taking note of the Transfer Policy; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.89 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.01.2026

¶3

_______________________ Sachin Pathak State of Himachal Pra	______________________________________________ ……...Petitioner Versus desh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved for	andeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ayurvedic Medical Officer at AAM Peukar, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, which falls under tribal area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1) , whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure in hard/tribal area.

¶6

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol,

¶7

¶8

fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶9

Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, which is a hard/tribal area, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or one of the stations of his choice on his/her having completed normal tenure i.e. two winters and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶10

January 02, 2026 (sunil)

Sachin Pathak v. the State of Hp Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Pathak v. the State of Hp 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

Shashi Bala Vs State of Hp and Others

Niraj Kumar Vs the Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Narayan Singh Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anupam Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roshan Lal Vs the Hrtc and Others