IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9389 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Himani Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School, Tal, is aggrieved of order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore School to Government Senior Secondary School, Nangal Khurad, Una. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, because petitioner has been not permitted to complete her normal tenure of three years at present place of posting. She states that petitioner has been working at present place of posting 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for last one year and seven months and as such, she could not have been transferred before her having completed minimum tenure of three years. She further states that otherwise also, petitioner could not have been transferred to far-flung area on account of the fact that her husband is also working as Headmaster at Government High School, Nagrota Gazian, rather, in terms of Transfer Policy, both petitioner and her husband ought to have been given benefit of couple case by adjusting them at a convenient station. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy General, states that w.e.f. the year 2016, till passing of impugned transfer order, petitioner has been working within the radius of 30 kilometers from the present place of posting and as such, she cannot be permitted to claim that she has not been permitted to complete her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 4. Though, Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that clubbing of previous posting is not permissible in terms of law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anurag Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.8605 of 2023, but she is unable to dispute that recently Division Bench of this Court has overruled the aforesaid judgment. She also attempted to argue that impugned transfer order has been effected to accommodate private respondent No.6, who was earlier transferred to Lahaul. 3 5. Though, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that husband of the petitioner is also working in Education Department and Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for transfer on the ground of couple case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-4), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. 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 thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Interim order dated 05.06.2025 stands hereby vacated. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)