IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8939 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dhanwanti Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Shipra Thakur & Ms. Heena Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Midwive/Trained Dai in Civil Hospital Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to Community Health Centre, Dhami, Teshil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, against the vacant post. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and she is 40% disabled on account of having Prosthetic eye. She has filed representation to the competent authority, praying therein transfer from present place of posting to Community Health Centre, Dhami, Teshil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, so that she may be taken care by the other family members, who at present are residing in Dhami. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that mere completion of tenure at one station does not make an employee entitle to seek transfer. He further states that having taken note of the fact that petitioner is handicapped, representation filed by her shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, clearly reveals that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than 18 years and as such, she can 2 be transferred strictly in terms of Transfer Policy, which otherwise provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station. 5. True it is that mere completion of tenure at one station does make an employee entitle to seek transfer, but in the case at hand, as has been taken note hereinabove, petitioner is 40% disabled having having Prosthetic eye and she has undergone from oculoplastic surgery, coupled with the fact that transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. 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 speaking order taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as provision contained in Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3