1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9886 of 2025 Date of decision: 20.06.2025 Sheela. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Pursuant to the decision in Sheela vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1, respondent No.2-Director, School Education, H.P. considered the representation of the petitioner for her adjustment at GSSS Moviseri, District Mandi and rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Petitioner is serving as Lecturer (English) in the respondent-Department and as such belongs to State Cadre. Under office order dated 17.05.2025, she was transferred from GSSS Sianj, District Mandi to GSSS Keolidhar, District 1 CWP No.8512 of 2025 decided on 22.05.2025. -2- Mandi. She assailed the said office order in Sheela1. The writ petition was disposed of as under:- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been transferred on the basis of a D.O. note to accommodate respondent No.4. Learned counsel, however, fairly submitted that respondent No.3 has since joined at the place of the petitioner. Learned counsel admits that petitioner has completed more than her normal tenure at the present place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner’s husband had undergone kidney transplant operation in the year 2023 at PGI Chandigarh and needs due care & treatment and permanent assistance. 4. In view of above submissions, and without interfering with the transfers of respondents No.3 and 4 under the impugned order, but keeping in view petitioner’s contentions that her transfer to a particular place has been ordered on the basis of a D.O. note and keeping in view her family circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the Competent Authority for her suitable transfer/adjustment within two days, thereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within next ten days. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. It is made clear that in case petitioner does not represent within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to her under this order shall automatically stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” Pursuant to the above directions, respondent No.2 decided the representation of the petitioner against her vide impugned order dated 28.05.2025. -3- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings forth the case that petitioner’s husband, who had undergone a Kidney Transplant Operation from PGI, Chandigarh in the year 2023, he needs constant care and attention. Under the impugned office order, the petitioner has been transferred to GSSS Keolidhar, District Mandi, the place is not suitable for the petitioner in view of her husband’s illness. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that petitioner has already joined at the transferred station, i.e. GSSS Keolidhar, District Mandi. 4. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s husband had taken voluntary retirement and is not in service anymore and is residing with the petitioner. If the aforesaid is the position, there is no reason as to why the petitioner cannot serve at GSSS Keolidhar, District Mandi. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner wants to be adjusted at GSSS Moviseri, District Mandi, which is nearer to her home. Such plea cannot be accepted in the given facts as it is not the case of the petitioner that at Moviseri there is some big hospital or that she requires to be posted in an area where hospital facilities are available. It is not in dispute that -4- Moviseri and Keolidhar are equally placed insofar as availability of medical facilities is concerned. It has also been apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s children are pursuing higher studies and are not residing with the petitioner. The impugned order records that ever since the year 2018, petitioner is serving within radius of 30 kms. Petitioner has also joined at the transferred station. Considering all these aspects, no case for interference in the impugned order is called for, hence the present petition stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 20th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)