IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7859 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjana Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Azad, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Panchayat Veterinary Assistant (PVA) at Panchayat Veterinary Dispensary (PVD) Mashot, Tehsil Kupvi, District Shimla, is aggrieved of transfer order dated 7.5.2025, whereby she has been transferred from aforesaid station to PVD Thana, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, she could not be transferred from afore station to PVD, Thana. Besides above, it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is in family way and as such, it - 2 - may not be possible for her to go to transferred station, which is at a distance of 130 kms from present place of posting. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting. He states that prior to conversion of petitioner to contractual establishment, petitioner was on same station since 2019 and as such, it cannot be said that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 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 reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by the learned Additional Advocate General. Though learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that petitioner is working at present station for one year and seven months, but she was unable to dispute that prior to petitioner’s conversion from daily wage to contract, she was posted at PVD Mashot Shimla. Since petitioner is posted at PVD Mashot since 2019 till passing of the impugned transfer order, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that she has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 5. Transfer policy if perused in entirety, nowhere makes any distinction between employees on regular basis or contract basis, - 3 - rather both are liable to be transferred after completion of normal tenure of posting, if required on the ground of administrative exigency and public interest. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is pregnant and distance between present place of posting and transferred station is more than 130 kms, this Court deems it fit to dispose of present petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within one week, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of aforesaid facts as well as object and intent of the transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within one week is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. 6. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge