Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15566 (HP)

ANU v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/8849/2025 · 2025-05-28

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8849 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Anu …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ayurvedic Pharmacist at Ayurvedic Health Wellness Centre Cheog, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in his representation, on account of the fact that petitioner is suffering from brain tumor, in time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of posting at present station, however, taking note of illness of the petitioner, as referred to above, representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by petitioner, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, suggests that petitioner is suffering from brain tumor and at present, he is under treatment from PGIMER, Chandigarh. Since petitioner is posted at Cheog, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, which is far away from PGIMER, Chandigarh, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical ground, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 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 thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, on medical grounds. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)