Ravinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

2026:HHC:22011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.9077 of 2026 Decided on: 05.06.2026 Uploaded on: 05.06.2026

¶4

Ravinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶8

Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of said respondents.

¶9

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed transfer order Annexure P-2, dated 27.04.2026, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred to GSSS Shivpur, District Sirmaur to GSSS Kafforta, District Sirmaur.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned transfer order is bad as the petitioner has been transferred from Shivpur, ignoring the fact that his stay at Shivpur was only 11 months. On a query put to learned Counsel as to where the petitioner was serving before his posting at Shivpur, he informed the Court that the petitioner was serving at Ajouli, where his stay was 14 months. Learned Counsel further informed the Court that the distance between Ajouli and Shivpur was just 10 kilometers. On a further query put to the learned Counsel as to where the petitioner was serving before his transfer at Ajouli, he submitted that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2

¶12

2026:HHC:22011 petitioner was serving at Paonta Sahib from where he was transferred to Ajouli after completion of normal stay and that the distance between Paonta Sahib and Ajouli was between 8 to 10 kilometers.

¶13

This Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner has served for more than normal tenure within a radius of 25 to 30 kilometers taking his collective stay at Paonta Sahib, Ajouli and Shivpur, he cannot make a grievance with regard to his transfer from Shivpur on the ground that he has been transferred from the said station after 11 months only.

¶14

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the transfers of the petitioner to Ajouli and Shivpur were politically motivated.

¶15

All that this Court can observe is that if that was so, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the appropriate Court of Law against his transfer to either Ajouli and Shivpur, but the very fact that he did not assail the said transfers demonstrates that he was not aggrieved by the same.

¶16

Therefore, now as the petitioner stands transferred to another station by clubbing his stay at previous stations, this Court finds no infirmity in the transfer orders and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶18

June 05, 2026 (Rishi)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vikrant Jagyan Vs Hpsebl and Another

Santi Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Naveen Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sharda Devi Vs State of Hp and Others