IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5179 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jyoti …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents- State. Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (School New) (English) at GSSS Khalini Shimla, is aggrieved of order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to GSSS Kaloti, Shimla. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that she has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but since challenge has been laid to impugned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transfer order on account of serious ailment, it may not be possible for her to join at transferred station, which is not only at a considerable distance, but also does not have adequate medical facilities. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner made available certain documents suggestive of the fact that petitioner has been diagnosed with cancer and as such, requires constant and good treatment. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she remained posted in and around Shimla since 2006, petition deserves outright dismissal. However, he states that any representation submitted by the petitioner for adjustment at a convenient station can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, after perusing the medical documents which are taken on record, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to file representation within two days for her adjustment at a 3 convenient station, which shall be decided within ten days. Ordered accordingly. 5. 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 appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 27, 2025 (Sunil)