IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9514 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Shalini Dhiman …….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. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. 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 Language Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Kolni Dhalwan, District Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore School to Government Senior Secondary School, Sainj Bagra, District Mandi. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law, because same has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, she 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 could not have been transferred to other station. He further states that as per law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anurag Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.8605 of 2023, clubbing of previous posting is not permissible, if it is so, impugned transfer order is not sustainable. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anurag Chadha (supra) has been overruled by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2734 of 2024, titled Monika Katna Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. He states that otherwise also, petitioner is posted at present place of posting for almost three years and she is working within the radius of 30 kilometers since 2019. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has almost completed normal tenure of posting at present station, coupled with the fact that she remained posted within the radius of 30 kilometers since 2019, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order, which otherwise appears to have been passed in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, learned counsel representing the petitioner has not been able to dispute that judgment rendered by 3 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anurag Chadha (supra) has been overruled by Division Bench of this Court in Monika Katna’s case (supra), as such, argument raised by him with regard to clubbing of previous posting is not sustainable in the eye of law, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner herein is having seven months pregnancy, 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. 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 account of adverse family circumstances. 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. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)