( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2588/2020 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Anju Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. K.S. Banyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioner’s primary grievance is to her repatriation from the establishment/office of Deputy Commission, Kullu to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat under office order dated 20.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) 3. The case From pleadings, as also the submissions made for the parties, following facts emerge: - 3(i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Translator (Class-III) in respondent No.3-H.P. Vidan Sabha Secretariat on 29.09.2008. She preferred a representation on 31.03.2010 seeking adjustment to the lower grade post of Clerk on health grounds. The representation was accepted by respondent No.3. On 07.04.2010, petitioner was transferred/adjusted on the lower grade of Clerk (Class-III) with the condition that she would have to qualify type test in Hindi or English language within one year from the date of issuance of the order. 3(ii) On 08.04.2010, petitioner represented to respondent No.3 seeking inter-departmental transfer/adjustment against a vacant post of Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District Kullu. Respondent No.3 forwarded petitioner’s representation on 08.04.2010 to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner Kullu for his response and further action. Respondent No.2 vide its office letter dated 09.04.2010 conveyed no objection for adjustment of the petitioner in the establishment/office of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. Copy of office communication dated 09.04.2010 was also endorsed by respondent No.2 to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh. In furtherance to respondent No.2’s office letter dated 09.04.2010, respondent No.3 relieved the 3 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) petitioner from H.P. Vidhan Sabha Secretariat under office order dated 16.04.2010 with direction to join duty as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. 3(iii) It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined her duty in the office of Deputy Commissioner Kullu pursuant to above order and is serving there in the same capacity ever since. From the case record, it appears that the petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 for her further adjustment as a Clerk in the State Education Department. Respondent No.2 took up the matter with respondent No.1 on 28.01.2012. Vide its office letter dated 04.05.2012, respondent No.1 did not accept the request citing reasons that petitioner was adjusted in the office of respondent No.2 on secondment basis without approval of the Government; She belongs to the establishment of respondent No.3-H.P. Vidhan Sabha Secretariat; Action on her request for permanent absorption in State Education Department was required to be taken by respondent No.3. Petitioner, thereafter, made another representation for her adjustment in Education Department to respondent No.3 on 09.07.2012. It appears that respondent No.2 also took up the matter with respondent No.3 on 11.07.2012. Respondent No.3 sent an office communication to respondent No.2 to the effect that petitioner had already completed two years of service in the office of respondent No.2 on 06.04.2012. That she was transferred to respondent No.2’s- 4 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) establishment for permanent adjustment as an inter-departmental transfer case after respondent No.2 had conveyed its no objection to the same. Through another office letter dated 24.07.2012, respondent No.3 informed respondent No.2 to take action for permanent adjustment/absorption of the petitioner in its (respondent No.2’s) establishment to enable respondent No.3 to terminate petitioner’s lien on the post of Clerk in respondent No.3. All this while and thereafter, petitioner continued to render her service as Clerk in the office of respondent No.2. On 05.09.2019, respondent No.2 took up the matter for permanent absorption of petitioner with respondent No.3 soliciting status of petitioner’s lien in respondent No.3. In response thereto, respondent No.3 vide its communication dated 23.01.2019 conveyed that it was not in receipt of any further communication on the subject from respondent No.2 after 2012; Petitioner stood permanently absorbed in the office of respondent No.2, accordingly her lien in the office of respondent No.3 stood terminated. 3(iv) From the case record, it appears that respondent No.2 vide its communication dated 16.02.2019 took up the matter of permanent absorption of petitioner in its establishment with respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 on 24.06.2019 expressed inability to concur with permanent absorption of petitioner in the establishment of respondent No.2. Based upon decision of 5 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) respondent No.1, respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.08.2019 for her repatriation to the office of Secretariat H.P. Vidhan Sabha. Reply filed by the petitioner to the said notice was not considered satisfactory and under office order dated 20.07.2020, petitioner was ordered to be repatriated to her parent department i.e. H.P. Vidhan Sabha-respondent No.3 with immediate effect. 3(v). Petitioner feels aggrieved against her repatriation to respondent No.3. The impugned order dated 20.07.2020, whereby the petitioner was repatriated was stayed under interim order dated 30.07.2020 passed in this writ petition. The said order continues to remain in force. 4. Consideration Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the case record, I am of the considered view that repatriation of the petitioner at this stage from the office of respondent No.2 to the office of respondent No.3 is not called for in the given facts and circumstances. 4(i) Petitioner’s representation seeking inter-departmental transfer/adjustment from the office of respondent No.3 to a vacant post of Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 had been duly forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 08.04.2010. In response thereto, respondent No.2 had clearly and um-ambiguously conveyed no objection for such adjustment of the petitioner in its 6 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) establishment vide office letter dated 09.04.2010. In case, approval of respondent No.1/State was required to be taken for petitioner’s adjustment/inter-departmental transfer in the office of respondent No.2, it was for respondent No.2 to have taken recourse to the procedure at that stage. Respondent No.2 had only endorsed the copy of its office letter dated 09.04.2010 to respondent No.1. It appears from the record that respondent No.1 had not even responded to the office letter dated 09.04.2010 at the relevant time. The result of all this was that services of the petitioner were transferred by respondent No.3 and she was actually adjusted in the office of respondent No.2 in April, 2010, where she continues to discharge her duties till date. 4(ii) It appears that though the matter of petitioner’s permanent absorption in the office of respondent No.2 was taken up by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1 but in the year 2012 and in view of petitioner’s further request for her transfer to State Education Department. Respondent No.1 on 04.05.2012 conveyed that the petitioner was a borrowed employee in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, her request for absorption in the Education Department has to be processed by the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. However, the fact remains that the petitioner continued to serve in the office of respondent No.2 ever since April 2010. Her case for permanent absorption was again re-opened on 16.02.2019 by 7 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) respondent No.2 and the same was rejected by respondent No.1 on 24.06.2019. Based upon rejection of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 ordered petitioner’s repatriation on 20.07.2020 to her parent department i.e. respondent No.3. In the given situation, where respondent No.2 had itself conveyed no objection to respondent No.3 for petitioner’s inter- departmental transfer/adjustment in the office of respondent No.2 on 09.04.2010 & consequent action thereupon by respondent No.3, the petitioner joined her duty in the office of respondent No.2 in April, 2010. It is too late for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to order petitioner’s repatriation to her parent department i.e. respondent No.3, where her lien had otherwise been terminated by respondent No.3 on completion of two years of service in the office of respondent No.2. Respondents are different entities of the State. They cannot be permitted to take their decision at leisure & fancies without any regard to the ticking clock and its consequences in utter disregard to the service career of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, who had permitted the petitioner to join establishment of respondent No.2 as an inter- departmental transfer employee, cannot be permitted to rake up the issue years after such adjustment. Opening of such an issue and allowing the respondents to examine that issue on merits at this stage would be very harsh upon the petitioner, who has continued to serve on the establishment of respondent No.2 ever since April 2010. In 8 ( 2025:HHC:31576-DB ) view of documents on record of the case, she has to be treated as an employee on the establishment of respondent No.2 for all intents & purposes. She shall be deemed to have been permanently absorbed in the establishment of respondent No.2 two years from the date of her joining the office of respondent No.2 i.e. on expiry of the lien period in respondent No.3. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed to the extent that impugned order dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be deemed to be the permanent employee of respondent No.2 on completion of her lien period, in accordance with law. She is also entitled for the service benefits as admissible to her in accordance with law as consequence thereof. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th September, 2025(rohit)