IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8123 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sonia Mahajan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School Barwala, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 13.05.2025, whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, vice Mr. Amit Sharma, respondent No. 4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that in terms of Clause 5.6 of Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, petitioner could not have been transferred in a routine manner particularly when it stands established on record that she is mother of a disabled child, who requires special care and attention. While referring to Clause 5.6 of afore office memorandum, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the said clause was duly taken note of by the competent authority, while passing the impugned transfer order, but yet for no cogent and convincing reason, petitioner has been transferred to far flung area, which is at a distance of 300 Kms from present place of posting. She also invited attention of this Court to office memorandum dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-1), wherein concessions have been extended to the officials having differently abled dependents. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Clause 6.8 of office memorandum dated 17.09.2015:- “Concession to officials having differently abled dependents: The Government employee who has disabled child may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints, as far as possible. the word "disabled" includes (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotors disability or Cerebral Palsy (iv) mental illness and (vii) multiple disabilities.” 3. As per aforesaid provision, Government employee, who has disabled child, may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to administrative constrains. Representation filed by the petitioner prior to filing of the petition at 2 hand (Annexure P-4) clearly reveals that son of the petitioner is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder having 60% disability, if it is so, she otherwise could not have been transferred to such a distant place. 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 the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly 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 impugned transfer order. 5. Though having perused pleadings as well as other documents adduced on record, this Court is fully convinced that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once Clause 5.6 of the note appended with impugned transfer itself suggests that since Government employee, who deserves concession in terms of Clause 5.6 of office memorandum dated 17.09.2015, should not be transferred in a routine manner, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed a representation to the competent authority, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the 3 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) expeditiously taking note of aforesaid clause provided in office memorandum dated 17.09.2015. 6. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as office memorandum dated 17.09.2015, which certainly enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station on account of ill-ness of her son. 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 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4