IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4647 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rekha Devi .…...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. .....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representations dated 18.2.2025 (Annexure P-7) and 10.3.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting, i.e, GSSS Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P to one of the station of her choice mentioned in the representation, dated 10.3.2025 on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting. 2. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with an affidavit, this Court finds that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract - 2 - basis on 31.3.2021 and as such she joined at present place of posting. However, her services were regularized in the month of March, 2023. After her being regularized, she made a representation to the respondents to post her at one of the station of her choice in terms of transfer policy but fact remains that vide transfer order dated 11.3.2024, she was ordered to be transferred from the present place of posting, i.e., GSSS Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur to GSSS Batseri, District Kinnaur, which is again hard area. Thereafter, she challenged the transfer order dated 11.3.2024 by filing CWP No.1994 of 2024, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, but respondents instead of transferring the petitioner from hard area to soft area, again transferred her to Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur vide order dated 17.5.2024 (Annexure P-6) by rejecting her request. 3. Careful perusal of order dated 17.5.2024 (Annexure P-6) though nowhere disputes the factum with regard to the petitioner having already served hard area for four years but yet no plausible explanation has been rendered on record for rejecting the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has completed more than four years at present place of posting, whereas as per transfer policy, an employee serving in tribal area can seek transfer after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, i.e, two winters and three summers. - 3 - 4. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that service rendered by the petitioner prior to her regularization cannot be taken into consideration for computing the total period of service rendered by her in hard area. However, after careful perusal of transfer policy, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that same does not make any distinction between contractual employee and regular employee rather it clearly provides that an employee after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, i.e., two winters and three summers is entitled to be transferred to one of the station of his/her choice. Since in the case at hand, the petitioner has already completed more than four years in hard area, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner for consideration of her representations by the competent authority in a time bound manner. - 4 - 5. Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 17.5.2024 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-7 & 9) of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order having taken note of the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma) mamta Judge