IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8681 of 2025 Date of Decision:26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Bala …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (History) Government Senior Secondary School, Kyarian, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 03.10.2024, whereby representation filed by her in terms of judgment dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8109 of 2024, titled Raj Bala vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of her transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station in light of ill-health of her husband, came to be rejected on the ground that incumbent posted at the stations of choice of the petitioner cannot be transferred on account of short stay. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order, petitioner had approached this Court, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation for transfer on the ground of ill health of her husband. This Court having taken note of ill health of husband of the petitioner, while permitting her to make representation, directed the respondents to consider and decide the same sympathetically within a period of two weeks. In terms of afore order, petitioner filed representation therein giving names of four schools, but competent authority, while considering the representation observed that all the stations opted by the petitioner are filled up by the incumbents, who have been recently posted there. Taking note of short stay of the incumbents in the stations given by the petitioner, respondent-Department advised petitioner to opt for some other stations. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner has now filed another representation dated 4.4.2025 (Annexure P-3), thereby stating that one post is likely to fall vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Sohari, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in the month of August, 2025 and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case she is posted in the afore school after retirement of the person working in the aforesaid school. Learned Additional 3 Advocate General fairly states that representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered at appropriate time. 4. Consequently, in view of the 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated 4.4.2025 (Annexure P-3),of the petitioner 15 days prior to the retirement of the employee working in Government Senior Secondary School Sohari, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and if possible, petitioner, who is certainly in difficulty on account of ill health of her husband, is adjusted in afore school. 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26,2025 (shankar)