Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned transfer order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) quashed; respondents directed to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at Government ITI, Nagrota Bagwan, with liberty to the Authorities to transfer him thereafter in terms of the transfer policy; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 30.08.2024, transferring the petitioner from Government ITI, Nagrota Bagwan to Government ITI, Bharari, District Bilaspur just after a stay of two months at Nagrota Bagwan, is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned transfer order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4).

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at Nagrota Bagwan, and thereafter the Authorities shall be at liberty to transfer him in terms of the transfer policy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 9171 of 2024, decided 15.06.2026) by an Instructor Draughtsman assailing his transfer order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby he was shifted from Government ITI, Nagrota Bagwan to Government ITI, Bharari, District Bilaspur barely two months after being posted at Nagrota Bagwan by order dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure P-3); his earlier station, Government ITI Neharan Pokhar, was stated not to lie within a radius of 20-25 kilometers of Nagrota Bagwan, and the premature transfer was argued to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, while the State submitted the transfer was passed in public interest. The private Respondent No. 4, though served, was proceeded against ex parte on 24.10.2024. Since the Court had stayed the operation of the transfer order on 03.09.2024 and the petitioner had by then completed almost two years of service at Nagrota Bagwan, the petition (oral judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel) was disposed of by quashing the transfer order dated 30.08.2024, with direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at Nagrota Bagwan, the Authorities remaining at liberty to transfer him thereafter in terms of the transfer policy.

2026:HHC:22135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 9171 of 2024 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Uploaded on: 15.06.2026.

Vijay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram

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

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents –State. : Respondent No. 4 ex parte . Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is serving as an Instructor Draughtsman, has assailed transfer order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), in terms whereof, he was transferred from Government ITI, Nagrota Bagwan to Government ITI, Bharari, District Bilaspur, just after a stay of two months at Nagrota Bagwan.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that before his transfer to Nagrota Bagwan in terms of order Annexure P-3, dated 18.06.2024, the petitioner was serving at Government ITI Neharan Pokhar and at the said station, he had completed his normal tenure. He submits that it is not as if Neharan Pokhar is in

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

2026:HHC:22135

close vicinity to Nagrota Bagwan, that is to say that within a radius of 20-25 kilometers and therefore, the transfer of the petitioner just after a period of two months from Nagrota Bagwan is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the transfer order was passed in public interest and therefore, there is no infirmity in the transfer order.

As the private respondent despite service has failed to put in appearance, accordingly, she was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 24.10.2024.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and in light of the fact that this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order on 03.09.2024 and now the petitioner has completed almost two years of service at Nagrota Bagwan, this petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned transfer order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), with direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at Nagrota Bagwan and thereafter, the Authorities shall be at liberty to transfer him, in terms of the transfer policy. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

June 15, 2026 ( narender )