IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8734 of 2025 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reena Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is waived by Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Considering the nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither reply is required to be called from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner is a Trained Graduate Teacher (Non- Medical), presently serving at GMS Balla Ghirtholi, under complex GSSS Jadrangal, District Kangra. Her grievance is to the office order dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), transferring her to GMS Kailashpur, under complex GSSS Makol, District Kangra. It appears that the petitioner was posted at the present place, i.e. GMS Balla Ghirtholi, on 21.01.2022. She, therefore, has completed the normal tenure at the aforesaid place and is liable to be transferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Epilepsy and therefore, is entitled to protection under the applicable transfer policy. Due to the aforesaid ailment, it is difficult for her to join at the transferred station, which is about 40 kilometers from her native place. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has represented to the respondents, through her counsel, on 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), highlighting her adverse family circumstances and seeking her suitable adjustment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide her aforesaid representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.4 under the impugned office order to the place of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of one week from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 26, 2025 Judge Mukesh