IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7845 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Poonam Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Mr. Rajinder Thakur & Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocates, for respondent No. 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Executive Engineer, HPPWD Eelectrical Division Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to office of SE (Electrical) HPPWD Electrical Circle, Dharamshala, vice Mr. Arun Kumar, respondent No. 4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but yet she has been transferred in violation of transfer policy. Besides above, it has been averred in the petition that petitioner is a single parent and mother of a specially abled child. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents- State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that bare perusal of averments contained in the petition itself suggests that petitioner has remained posted throughout in District Kullu, which is at a distance of 60 Kms from present place of posting. He states that petitioner joined present place of posting on promotion in the year 2023 and now, she has been transferred to Dharamshala, which apart from being a developed city, also offers access to better healthcare facilities. 4. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4, states that respondent No. 4 has already joined. 5. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this is a fit case, where impugned transfer order deserves to be interferred, but having taken note of the fact that prior to petitioner’s posting at Mandi, she was posted at Kullu for a considerable time. This Court, while restraining itself from interferring in the impugned transfer order, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation, praying therein for 2 cancellation of transfer on account of adverse family circumstances, which in turn shall be decided sympathetically within a period of one week. 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 appropriate orders thereafter taking note of the fact that petitioner is a single parent and her daughter is 80% disabled and at present is being taken care of by mother of the petitioner, who resides at Mandi. 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3