IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9022 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.12 . 2025 Susheel. ...Petitioner.

Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner. Mr.Mukul Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5.

Ms.Saloni Nee Susham Lata, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner, who is serving as Shastri in GGSSS Rampur, District Shimla and is under transfer to GSSS Sarpara, District Shimla, has approached this Court against rejection of his representation dated 23.4.2025 vide Office Order dated 22.5.2025, whereby request of the

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

petitioner to adjust him in Schools nearby Rampur on thPe basis of his physical disability of more than 40%, has been rejected.

2. Plea of the petitioner is that his representation has been rejected mainly on the ground that Comprehensive/ Guiding Principles, 2013 for regulating transfers of State oGovernment employees notified by Memorandum dated 10.7.2013 p rovide concession to handicapped employees with disability of 60% and above but disability of petitioner is less than 60% whereas conjoint reading of provisions of Sections 2(a), 2(r) and 2(y) read with Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as judgment dated 5^th July, 2024 passed in CWP No. 6306 of 2024 clearly indicates that persons with disability of more than 40% should have been considered for extending benefit of Clause 5.3 of Comprehensive/Guiding Principles, 2013 for granting iconcession to the petitioner as physically disabled employee.

3. Though it is well settled that guidelines for transfer are not enforceable like Statute or Rules, however, the same has to be followed by at large and should be taken into consideration for good governance.

4. It is also apt to record that decision in CWP No. 6306 of 2024 also pertains to the employee of the same Department, i.e. Education Department and the same has been accepted and implemented by the respondents, wherein it has been categorically held that the benchmark disability mentioned in Clause P5.3 of Office Memorandum dated 10.7.2013 (Comprehensive/Guiding Principles, 2013) should be read as 40% as mentioned in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and not 60% as specified in memorandum dated

10.7.2013. o

5. In view of above, rej ection order dated 22.5.2025 is set aside with direction to the respondent authority to re-consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observation and after giving opportunity of hearing, if so desired, to pass a speaking and reasonCed order within seven days from today.

6. Needless to say we have not decided the claim of the petitioner to retain him at present place of posting or to post at the stations nearby Rampur. The said claim has to be considered by the icompetent Authority on its own merit, taking into consideration all other surrounding circumstances and relevant factors, apart from factor of disability.

7. It is also made clear that petitioner may submit stations of his choice within two days from today as he has no vested right to continue at one place of posting by referring his disability. Submission of stations of choice does not create any vested or indefeasible right in favour of petitioner to post him at a particular place.

8. It is also made clear that in case any party inPcluding private respondent is aggrieved from the fresh order to be passed by the competent Authority, the said party shall have liberty to avail appropriate remedy, including approaching the Court for redressal of grievance.

The petition stands odisposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any, in aforesaid ter ms.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

(Romesh Verma), Judge.

16^th December, 202