IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7973 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rachna Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as Officer Junior Management (OJM-1), is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from Varanda, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh to Bali- Chowki, District Mandi, 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 transfer of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law being passed in violation of the transfer policy. While making this Court peruse transfer policy of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank (Annexure P-2), learned counsel for the petitioner states that in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 terms of Clause 12(i) of the afore policy, maternity/child care, female staff having children below the age of 2 years could not have been transferred, rather should have given preference. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Mr. Khajuria, while justifying the impugned action of the respondent-Bank, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned order. While making this Court peruse Clause 12 of transfer policy pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents states that Clause 12(i) of the policy is not applicable in the case of the petitioner because it is none of her case that impugned transfer has been effected on her request. Had she made request on account of her having children below the age of two years and it may not be possible for her to go to the transferred station, respondent-department would have considered her prayer for adjustment, if any. He further states that as per transfer policy, every employee is required to be transferred to other region after completion of two tenures, whereas petitioner herein has served for two tenures in Dharamshala region 3 as such, she has been rightly transferred from Dharamshala region to Mandi region. 4. Since, it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record that petitioner herein has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that there is a condition in the transfer policy that no employee can work for more than two tenures in one region, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of Clause 12 of the transfer policy, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for cancellation of her transfer order/adjustment at a convenient station in terms of Clause 12(i) of the transfer policy, especially when it is not in dispute that she is mother of children below the age of two years, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at 4 the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 15,2025 (shankar)