SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
DR.DHARAM PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CWP/19785/2025



Petitioner Advocates:Ashwani Kumar Sharma Nitin Rishi Shivani ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19785 of 2025

Date of Decision: 29.12.2025

_____________________________________________________________________

Dr. Dharam Pal ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, oJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashw ani K. Sharma & Ms. Shivani,

Advocattes.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate

General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish

Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Block

Medical Officer at Sandhol, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is

aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has

been transferred from afore station to BMO Kataula, District Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh, within short span of one year and two months.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashwani K.

Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner

has been transferred on the basis of DO Note and that too within a

short span of one year and two months. Vide order dated 15.12.2025,

this Court, while staying the operation of order dated 11.12.2025,

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:28:40 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have

instructions and produce the relevant record.

3. Though in terms of afore order, learned Additional

Advocate General has produced record, but no reply to the petition has

been filed. While referring to the record, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned

Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that impugned

transfer has not been effected on the basis of DO Note, rather having

taken note of the fact that pettitioner has remained posted in and

around present place of posting for more than 30 years. Besides

above, Mr. Kahol, further argued that petitioner, being Class-I Officer,

cannot take shelter of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of

Himachal Pradesh.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record, this Court finds that though prior to

petitioner’s posting at Sandhol, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, he

remained posted within a radius of 25 Kms for more than 30 years,

but admittedly he was transferred from CHC Cholthra, Himachal

Pradesh to the office of BMO Sandhole, District Mandi, Himachal

Pradesh, which is at a distance of 53 Kms. After his transfer to

Sandhole, where the petitioner has been working for more than one

year and two months, respondents-State cannot be permitted to claim

that petitioner has remained posted within a radius of 30 Kms from

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:28:40 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

the present place of posting for the last 30 years, rather for one year

and two months, he has remained posted at Sandhole, which is at a

distance of 53 Kms from his previous place of posting. This Court is

unable to find out any DO Note alleged to be issued by some extra

constitutional authority.

5. Having carefully perused record made available to this

Court, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel

for the petitioner that petitionert has been transferred on the basis of

DO Note, but having taken note of judgment passed by Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1863 of 2018, titled as Rattan

Chand Vs. State of H.P. & others, this Court is not persuaded to

agree with the contention that petitioner, being a Class-I Officer, is not

entitled take shelter of Transfer Policy formulated by Government of

Himachal Pradesh, rather in afore terms, an official, be it Class-I or

Class-II, is entitled to complete normal tenure of posting. Relevant

para of the afore judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-

“The petitioner is working as a Principal in Government Senior

Secondary School. He was transferred to Government Senior

Secondary School, Alampur, District K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top