IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9031of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Anju Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present, is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Middle School Tangroti Khas under Complex Government Senior Secondary School Tang Narwana, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 15.5.2025 (Annexure P- 1), whereby she has been transferred from aforesaid station to Government Senior Secondary School Houri Devi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel - 2 - for the petitioner is that though petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but she never made any request for mutual transfer. She states that though petitioner before coming to this Court had filed representation (Annexure P-2), praying therein that she has recently given birth to a child, as such, it may be difficult for her to go to Houri Devi. Representation, as pointed out, further reveals that respondent No.6-Sapandeep Sanghera, has agreed to join at Houri Devi and in that regard, she had also given consent, but neither representation has been decided nor impugned transfer order has been modified/cancelled by the respondents. 2. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order, however he fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact - 3 - that petitioner has recently given birth to a child coupled with the fact that respondent No.6 has given consent to join at Houri Devi, 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/ competent authority to consider and decide pending representation (Annexure P- 3) expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on mutual basis as well as medical grounds. Till the time, representation, if any, filed within one week, is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, if not already joined. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge