Whether approved for reporting?

Yes¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the petitioner: Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. tRahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) A Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the Respondents to immediately transfer/ adjust the Petitioner to Rampur.

ii) The Respondents be directed to finalize the creation of the Supernumerary Post at Rampur within a fixed period.

iii) The Petitioner be permitted to discharge his duties at Rampur to ensure the safety of his life and the welfare of his dependent family.”

The case of the petitioner is that he is 100% visually impaired, his wife is also 75% visually impaired and they have a two year old child. He is serving presently against the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer. According to him, in light of his medical and family circumstances, as it is not possible for him to serve at Shimla, a mandamus be issued to the respondent-Department, directing them to create a supernumerary post at Rampur under Section 20 (4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as “RPwD Act, 2016”) in terms of Annexure P-2 and post him at the said centHre.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner asf well as his wife are both persons with disability and have a small child to look after, it is not possible for them to stay at Shimla on account of the topography of the town. She submits that the petitioner be posted at Rampur against any post and salary of the petitioner be paid to him from Shimla.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, by referri ng to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Inspector of the Co-operative Societies on contract basis on 26.11.2018, against the quota reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities and his services were regularised on 19.01.2022. In terms of judgment dated 30.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.8963 of 2023, the services of the petitioner were regularised as an Inspector of Co-operative Societies from the initial date of his appointment and thereafter, he was promoted against the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer, on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that on account of promotion conferred upon the petitioner, he was posted at Solan. However, the petitioner again filed a petition before this Court, i.e. CWP No.17491 of 2025 and he was adjusted at Shimla in terms of the order passed by the Court in the said petition on 15.12.2025, against sanctioned post of DisHtrict Inspector/District Audit Officer in place of his earlier posting in the office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solanf. Learned Deputy Advocate General also submitted that in this backdrop and more so in light of the fact that there is no post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer in the office of Inspector Co-operative Societies, Rampur, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be transferred to Rampur. He submitted that the Department is not averse to posting the petitioner at a station where the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer exists, but the insistence of the petitioner to be posted at Rampur only is totally arbitrary.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings on record.

The petitioner is praying for him being posted at Rampur by creating a supernumerary post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer. Annexure P-2 is being relied upon, which is a communication dated 01.11.2025, addressed by Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, to Secretary Cooperation, in which it is mentioned that