Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9232 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.06.2025 Geeta Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 31.05.2025. wherein she has been transferred from GHS Totarani, District Kangra to GSSS Chopal, District Shimla. 2. During the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:- Petitioner’s first appointment was at GHS Kotwali, Dharamshala, District Kangra, where she had joined on 21.12.2020 and where her services were also regularized on 31.05.2023; Petitioner was transferred to MMGHS Totarani, District Kangra, on 02.09.2023. The distance between Kotwali and Totarani is not more than 20 kms. The petitioner has been posted in and -2- around Kotwali for the last about four years. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s husband is serving as SHO at Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi, which is about 82 kms from Totarani and about 300 kms from Chopal. The petitioner, being the mother of two minor children, would face difficulty in managing household affairs single-handedly while her husband is posted at Jogindernagar. Hence, the petitioner is also interested in transfer to a place nearby her husband’s place of posting, and she is entitled to this concession in view of Clause 5.4 of the applicable transfer policy. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case she is permitted to prefer a representation for consideration of her case for transfer to the respondents/Competent Authority, whereafter, the Competent Authority may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. This is not objected to by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In view of above submissions but without interfering with transfer of respondent No.3 in the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the -3- petitioner to prefer a representation within three days. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and applicable policy within a further period of two weeks 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 3rd June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)