2025:HHC:18158 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9395 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Viveka Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition, petitioner herein, who at present is working as Trainer Machinist in Model Industrial Training Institute, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. has laid challenge to order dated 2.6.2025 Annexure P/9, whereby she has been directed to join her duties in the office of Principal, Government ITI, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that being a contractual employee, petitioner could not have been transferred from present place of posting to the transferred station. He further states that otherwise 2025:HHC:18158 ) - 2 - also the petitioner has been transferred from present place of posting to Solan for the reason that she had raised some issue against the Principal of ITI, Nalagarh. 3. 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. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that there is nothing in the transfer policy which prohibits State of Himachal Pradesh to transfer contract employee rather in terms of policy, contractual employee can also be transferred. While making this Court peruse impugned transfer order dated 2.6.2025, learned Additional Advocate General states that it nowhere suggests that the petitioner has been transferred on account of malafides on part of Principal of the concerned Institute rather she has been transferred on administrative grounds. 4. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is working at the present place of posting for more than 7 years coupled with the fact that distance between Solan and Nalagarh is not much and there is nothing in transfer policy, which prohibits respondents-State from transferring contractual employee, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and the same fails and 2025:HHC:18158 ) - 3 - dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma) mamta Judge