Dismissed¶¶23

Ravinder Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2026LPA/411/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA No. 411 of 2026, HHC 2026, appeal dismissed; transfer policy Himachal Pradesh Education Department; clubbing of services/stay; Office Memorandum 27.10.2023 (Annexure A-1); Transfer Policy Guidelines 10.07.2013, Department of Personnel; 30 kilometre radius tenure calculation; intra-district transfer District Sirmaur; GSSS Shivpur; GSSS Kofforta; Paonta Sahib; Ajouli; objection to transfer after 11 months; Single Judge judgment CWP No. 9077 of 2026 upheld; misuse of transfer policy; far-flung area vacancies.

What did the court decide?

The Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2023 clubbing services/stay was adopted only for the purpose of better administration and to ensure that employees of the Education Department cannot misuse the transfer policy by staying within the same area for more than three years. ¶¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should uphold the learned Single Judge's judgment (CWP No. 9077 of 2026) declining to interfere with the appellant's transfer from GSSS Shivpur to GSSS Kofforta effected by the transfer order dated 27.04.2026. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

It transpired during arguments that the petitioner had remained only in District Sirmaur for the last ten years, which further fortified the view taken by the learned Single Judge and by this Bench.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

¶¶20

Key takeaways

No challenge to the said Office Memorandum was made in the writ petition itself; the objection to clubbing was raised only at the appellate stage.ratio¶¶15
The remarks column specifically recorded that the petitioner was transferred by clubbing his previous stay within a radius of 10 kilometres.ratio¶¶15
The Office Memorandum was issued by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. in furtherance of the Transfer Policy Guidelines dated 10.07.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA dismissed — High Court of Himachal Pradesh (G. S. Sandhawalia, CJ, orally, with Justice Bipin C. Negi) upholds the Single Judge's judgment in CWP No. 9077 of 2026 declining to interfere with the appellant Ravinder Singh's intra-district transfer (GSSS Shivpur to GSSS Kofforta, District Sirmaur) effected by transfer order dated 27.04.2026. The appellant's appellate-stage objection to clubbing of services/stay per Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure A-1), issued in furtherance of the Transfer Policy Guidelines dated 10.07.2013, was found baseless: the OM fixes a 30 km radius and clubs service at stations therein for tenure computation, to curb misuse of the transfer policy and relieve vacancies in far-flung areas; no challenge to the OM was raised in the writ petition, and the petitioner had remained confined to District Sirmaur for ten years.

¶1

2026:HHC:29288

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

LPA No. 411 of 2026

¶4

Date of decision: 15.07.2026

¶5

Ravinder Singh …Appellant Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Co ram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶8

G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

Consideration has been sought of the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 9077 of 2026 , titled Ravinder Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , on 05.06.2026, whereby the learned Single Judge has not interfered in the transfer order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was transferred from GSSS Shivpur, District Sirmaur to GSSS Kofforta, District Sirmaur, within the same District.

¶10

The learned Single came to the conclusion that on earlier occasion also the petitioner was serving in the near vicinity at Ajouli where he had stayed for 14 months and the distance between Ajouli and Shivpur was just 10 kilometers. Prior to the transfer to Ajouli, the petitioner was serving at Paonta Sahib, where he had completed his normal tenure of 3 years, and the distance

¶11

¶12

2026:HHC:29288

¶13

between these stations was again between 8 to 10 kilometers. Thus, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner had served for more than normal stay within the radius of 25 to 30 kilometers taking his collective stay at Paonta Sahib, Ajouli and Shivpur and the objection that he had been transferred only after a period of 11 months from Shivpur was thus, over-ruled and the petition was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant now objected to the issue as such of clubbing of services/stay for the purpose of transfer of the employees in the Education Department, which has been done vide Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure A-1).

¶15

Apparently, no such challenge was made in the writ petition to the said memorandum and there was a specific mention in the remarks column that petitioner has been transferred by clubbing his previous stay within the radius of 10 kilometers.

¶16

A perusal of the aforesaid office memorandum would go on to show that keeping in view the malady as such in the Education Department that the employees remained posted within a short distance for a long time and resulting in vacancy in far flung areas, the said office memorandum was issued by the Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. in furtherance of the Transfer Policy Guidelines dated 10.07.2013, which was issued by the Department of Personnel. Thus, apparently, for the purpose of better administration, the said office memorandum has been issued

¶17

¶18

2026:HHC:29288

¶19

whereby 30 kilometers radius has been fixed for considering the stay at one station and such services were to be clubbed for calculation of tenure for the purpose of transfer.

¶20

We are of the considered opinion that it has been done only for the purpose of better administration and to ensure that there is no misuse by the employees of the Education Department, who can then take advantage of the transfer policy and they can stay within the same area for a period of more than three years.

¶21

During the course of the arguments, it also transpired that the petitioner for the last ten years has only remained at District Sirmaur, which further fortifies the view taken by the learned Single Judge and also by us.

¶22

In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶24

(G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶25

(Bipin C. Negi) 15^th July, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)

Ravinder Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh v. the 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

Kashmir Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Padam Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sunita Rana Vs State of Hp and Others

Anjana Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Sumit Sharma