IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8836 of 2025 Decided on: 27th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seema Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4, which is waived by Ms. Leena Guleria, 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.5. 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 serving as Peon-cum-Chowkidar at GMS Bhagetter, under complex GSSS Lahat, District Kangra. Her grievance is to the office order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereunder, she has been transferred to GSSS Harsi, District Kangra. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was posted at the present place in February, 2021 and as such has completed more than four years of tenure and is liable to be transferred to another place, but since she is due for retirement in October, 2026, therefore, in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the applicable transfer policy, option is required to be given to her for her suitable adjustment. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already preferred a representation to the competent authority on 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), seeking her suitable adjustment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the competent authority is directed to decide her aforesaid representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.5 under the impugned office order to the place of the 3 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 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) 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 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh