IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8728 of 2025 Decided on: 27th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Aprna ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No. 11955 of 2025 In view of explanation, the application is allowed in terms of its prayer clause. Order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) appended alongwith the application is ordered to be taken on record in place of existing Annexure P-1. The application to stand disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - CWP No. 8728 of 2025 2. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned Counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 3. Petitioner is serving as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Khasba Nirwana, District Kangra, H.P.. Under the impugned office order dated 21.05.2025, she has been transferred to GHS Snah, District Chamba, H.P. vice respondent No.3. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that respondent No.3 had preferred CWP No. 6507 of 2025 (Annexure P-2), in essence, praying for transfer from his place of posting, which fell in the hard/tribal area, on the ground that he had completed his normal tenure there. Pursuant to the decision rendered in the aforesaid writ petition on 22.04.2025, the Competent Authority considered respondent No.3’s representation and ordered his transfer at the place of the petitioner under the impugned order. In view of respondent No.3 having completed his normal tenure at the hard/tribal area, his transfer to the place of the petitioner cannot be faulted. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the impugned transfer order, petitioner has been transferred to District Chamba, whereas, she had already rendered thirteen years’ of service in District Chamba; The petitioner should not have been transferred once again to District Chamba; Furthermore, husband of the petitioner is serving as Executive Officer in Urban Development Department at Kangra and has been transferred to Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, being a couple case, petitioner is entitled to the concession flowing from Clause 5.4 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles/Transfer Policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority, seeking her suitable adjustment, whereafter, respondent No.2/Competent Authority be directed to consider her representation within a time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for the same. 5. Having regard to the above submissions, but without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.3 - 4 - under the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority for her suitable adjustment. In case such a representation is made within two days, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.2/Competent Authority, in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy, within a week thereafter. Copy of order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, petitioner shall be at liberty to take leave of the kind due. It is made clear that in case petitioner does not represent within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to her under this order shall automatically stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 27, 2025 R.Atal