IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7856 of 2025 Decided on: 13th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sudesh Dogra ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is accepted by Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter neither the reply is required to be called from respondents No.1 and 2, nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.3. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. Petitioner is serving at TGT (Arts). Her grievance is to office order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), which transfers her from GSSS Bhaderwad, District Mandi, H.P. to GHS Chet u/c GSSS Cheuni, District Mandi, H.P. The transfer has been made vice respondent No.3, who has been brought to the place of the petitioner from GHS Chet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the impugned office order, petitioner has been transferred to a Sub-Cadre area, which is at a distance of 120 K.M from her present place of posting; At this stage, it will be very difficult for the petitioner to serve at Sub-Cadre area as petitioner has twin daughters, aged about four years; Her husband is also serving in the Education Department as Language Teacher at GSSS Sarkaghat, District Mandi; Though the petitioner is not averse to her transfer considering she has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting, but it is difficult for her to serve in Sub Cadre area that too at a distant place from the place of posting of her husband. Her’s is a couple case and she is entitled to the concession as per Clause 5.4 of the applicable Transfer Policy. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority, seeking her adjustment at a suitable place, whereafter, respondent No.2/Competent Authority be directed to consider her representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General has no objection for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent No.3 has not joined at the place of the petitioner till date. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, but without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.3 under the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority for her suitable adjustment. In case such a representation is made within three days, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy, within a week thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. Implementation of office order dated 07.05.2025 - 4 - (Annexure P-5) shall be deferred qua the petitioner and respondent No.3 till decision of the above representation. It is made clear that in case petitioner does not represent within the aforesaid period, the limited protection granted to her under this order shall automatically stand vacated. Upon decision of petitioner’s representation in the manner aforesaid, respondent No.3 shall be permitted to join at the place of the petitioner, in terms of the impugned office order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 13, 2025 R.Atal