The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that while an employee’s compassionate circumstances—such as a spouse’s serious illness—merit consideration, administrative requirements and transfer guidelines prevail. The Court directed that the competent authority must reconsider transfer adjustment requests in accordance with law, after due representation. The judgment upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/15996/2025 of SUSHIL KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010623802025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts under Himachal Pradesh jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee seeking transfer on compassionate grounds (family member’s serious illness) is entitled to be posted at a station of his choice, overriding administrative policy? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that while the compassionate circumstances of the petitioner (spouse’s serious illness) require fair consideration, administrative exigencies and the employee’s length of stay at a station are also relevant. The petitioner had completed more than nine years at his previous posting and sought cancellation of his transfer only to continue at that same station. The authority had already considered his situation and transferred him near the medical facility (75 km away), rather than at the same place. The Court clarified it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation, and the authority must decide it within one week considering medical needs and vacancy position. Protection from joining the new place of posting would continue only if the representation is filed promptly. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a government employee, was transferred from Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur (where he had served over nine years) to SDO (Civil) Salooni. His wife, diagnosed with cancer in 2020, requires ongoing treatment in Chandigarh. He requested transfer cancellation on compassionate grounds. The competent authority, after Court intervention, transferred him to SDO (Civil) Pachhad (75 km from the cancer hospital) but not for continued retention at Hamirpur. In the current writ, the petitioner sought quashing of this new transfer and permission to file a fresh representation for a more suitable posting. The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to file representation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and officers within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar factual matrix |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that while serious illness of an employee’s family member must be taken into account, transfer requests must still adhere to administrative guidelines and vacancy positions.
- Employees who have completed a full tenure at one station cannot claim indefinite continuation at the same place, even for compassionate reasons, if administrative policy requires movement.
- The Court provided that employees may seek adjustment by submitting a fresh representation, and directed quick decision-making by the competent authority, prioritizing both compassion and administrative convenience.
- Protection against compulsory joining applies only if a fresh representation is filed in the stipulated time.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recognized the petitioner’s completion of over nine years at the current posting and acknowledged the compassionate ground of his wife’s cancer diagnosis.
- It observed that in earlier proceedings, the competent authority’s order already considered his wife’s illness and adjusted his transfer to a station within reasonable proximity to the treatment center (75 km).
- The Court clarified that asking only for continued posting at the same station after an extended tenure cannot be the sole remedy—petitioner should have suggested other stations for adjustment while respecting administrative constraints.
- The Court found merit in the petitioner’s readiness to file a fresh representation and directed the authority to consider such a request promptly (within one week), taking into account medical necessity, administrative grounds, and available vacancies.
- Interim protection from compulsory joining was conditionally extended, tied to timely filing of the new representation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Highlighted that he has served more than nine years at Hamirpur.
- Stressed that his wife is suffering from cancer and needs ongoing treatment in Chandigarh.
- Sought quashing of the latest transfer order and continued posting at Hamirpur due to his wife’s health.
- Expressed willingness to submit a fresh representation for consideration of alternate stations.
Respondents (State):
- Stated that the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds.
- Noted that, considering the medical needs, the petitioner was previously transferred to a post 75 km from the treatment hospital.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a long-serving government officer, was transferred from Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, to SDO (Civil) Salooni. His wife has cancer and is under treatment in Chandigarh. The petitioner initially sought to remain at Hamirpur but, after the authorities considered his case, he was posted to Pachhad, 75 km from the hospital. Dissatisfied, he filed this writ, seeking further accommodation based on his wife’s health, and expressing readiness to request a suitable station.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provision was expressly interpreted by the Court in this judgment; the matter was addressed based on broad principles of administrative law, service jurisprudence, and procedural fairness related to transfer and compassionate representations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; a single judge authored the decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court mandated a time-bound response by the competent authority: any new representation filed by the petitioner must be decided within one week of submission.
- Interim protection from compulsory joining is expressly conditioned on timely filing of the representation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms established principles regarding transfer on compassionate and administrative grounds.