IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9391 of 2025 Date of Decision:05.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anupama …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been ordered to be transferred from afore school to Government Senior Secondary School Khajjiar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy. He states that since petitioner has not completed 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, she could not have been transferred. 3. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General states that the petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. He states that before her being posted at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, she remained posted within the radius of 30 Km to afore school for so many years and now vide impugned order she has been transferred to Khajjiar, which is at a distance of less than 20 KM. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of D.O. Note issued by extra constitutional authority and as such, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents. 5. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner is posted at present place of posting for the last two years and three months, coupled with the fact that prior to her posting at present station, she remained posted within the radius of 30 KM, there 3 appears to be no justification to take note of issuance of D.O. Note sought to be raised by learned counsel representing the petitioner. 6. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioner has been transferred at the distance of 20 KM. For the reasons detailed hereinabove, though this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however having taken note of adverse family circumstances as came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two days to competent authority, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week, taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of two days, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station,. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 05,2025 (shankar)