IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA

CWP No. 632/2026

Decided on: 07.01.2026

Ashish Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

……………………………………………………………………………….

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, oJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional

u Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Taking into consideration the nature of the impugned

order, pleadings, the submissions made and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the petition is not required to be called

from the respondents. The matter has been heard accordingly.

2. Petitioner had preferred Ashish Kumar Vs. State of

H.P. & Anr., CWP No 15111/2025 decided on 18.09.2025, which was disposed of as under:-

“4. Since it is apparent from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record at the behest of the petitioner that petitioner is disabled to the extent of 45% and transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides certain

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

concessions to an employee having disabled, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose .of the present petition, with a direction to the respondentPs to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

3. Pursuant to above directions, respondent No.2 considered petitioner’s case and rejected it under following order passed on 18.10.2025: -

“In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 14.10.2025 by the undersigned and the petitioner attended the personal hearing on scheduled date and time and was heard at length. During the course of hearing, the petitioner requested that he may-be- transferred from GHS Dhalli u/c GSSS-Piran, Distt. Shimla to GSSS Pir Salhul or GHS Chamukha u/c GSSS Pir Salhui or GMS Tikker u/c GSSS Pir Salhui or GSSS Galoon, Distt. Kangra against vacant post or Longer stayee.

After perusal of the relevant record, it is revealed that the petitioner was transferred from GSSS Aloh Distt. Kangra to GHS Dhalli u/c GSSS Piran, Distt. Shimla vide this office letter of even number dated 19.05.2025 with the prior approval of competent authority. As per information received in this office, the petitioner joined at the place of his posting in GHS Dhalli on 03.06.2025. As per provision contained in Comprehensive Guidelines Principles- 2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees. It is specifically mentioned in Para 12.1 "Transfer to a particular place of choice cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It will be the discretion of the State Government to post/transfer any employee anywhere in the State keeping in view of the administrative exigencies/convenience, hence the request .of the petitioner cannot be acceded.” P

4. The above extracted order passed by respondent No.2 does not reflect decision of petitioner’s representation in consonance with specific directions issued in Ashish Kumar² Respondent No.2 was directed in Ashish Kumar² to keep in view petitioner’s disability to the exte nt of 45%, as also the concessions made available to disabled employees under the applicable transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, while deciding the petitioner’s representation.

In the impugned order, respondent No.2, though records that the petitioner had prayed for his transfer from his current place of posting to any of the stations menti