IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9073 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Babita Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. 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 TGT (NM) at Government Senior Secondary School Boys Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Tangling, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. 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 impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy because petitioner has not completed normal of three years at present place of posting and her transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by respondent No. 6, who is extra constitutional authority. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents- State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at Government Senior Secondary School Boys Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but for the last so many years, she has remained posted within a radius of 30 Kms from the present place of posting and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. While responding to the allegation of the petitioner with regard to transfer on the basis of DO Note, Mr. Kahol, states that perusal of impugned transfer order, nowhere reflects that same has been issued on the basis of DO Note, rather same has been passed on the ground that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting in hard/tribal area. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has remained posted within a radius of 30 Kms from the present place of posting for more than 6 years, there appears to be no reason to take note of plea of DO Note raised by the petitioner, which otherwise cannot be said to 2 be substantiated for the reason that impugned transfer order nowhere reflects that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of DO Note, rather same appears to have been issued with the prior approval of the competent authority. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner’s husband is seriously ill on account of having spine injury as is evident from the documents adduced on record with regard to treatment being received by the husband of the petitioner, 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 two weeks. 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 taking note of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Since it is quite apparent from the documents adduced on record that on account of spine injury, husband of the petitioner is bed ridden, this Court hopes and trusts that representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered sympathetically. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be 3 relieved, if not already relieved, pursuant to impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4