IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9635 of 2025 Announced on: 11.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Seemta …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Vacation Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Heard. Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts and waives service of notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3-State. 2. Petitioner, Seemta, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs:- (a) That the Office order dated 06.06.2025 [Annexure P-2] may kindly be quashed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - and set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to work at present place of posting. (b). In even of the denial of first prayer the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be adjusted at nearby stations of her choice as per policy of State Government. 3. Petitioner is a Staff Nurse, posted in Civil Hospital, Palampur, District Kangra since 04.09.2018. Tenure and incumbency is not in dispute. Grievance is that once the petitioner had served in the Difficult- Hard Area of Civil Hospital Tissa [District Chamba] for about 4 years from July, 2012 till April, 2016, therefore, the Impugned Order dated 6.6.2025 [Annexure P-2] transferring her again to the Difficult/Hard/Tribal Area of CH Bharmour, Chamba [Annexure P-2] is contrary to Clause 12 of Transfer Policy. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is stated to have submitted a representation undated [Annexure P-5] and on 9.6.2025 [Annexure P-5 colly], which is stated to be pending. 4. At this stage, Learned Counsel states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondent No.2- Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to consider/examine the representation in the light of existing - 3 - transfer policy. 5. The statement made in Para 4 supra, being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned State Counsel, except that Impugned Orders, have been passed, in pursuance to the directions dated 28.05.2025 [Annexure P-3] passed in CWP No. 8378 of 2025 on 28.5.2025, In re: Dr. Janak Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 6. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Respondents could not apply the norms in Clause 12 in a discriminatory manner, without sending those incumbents to Hard/Difficult/Tribal Areas, who have not served in such areas even once. It is contended that the directions passed on 28.05.2025 [Annexure P-3] supra, in case of Dr. Janak Raj [CWP No. 8378 of 2025] neither permits nor mandates the State Authorities to resort to pick and choose method, so as to act dehors the provisions of Clause 12 of the policy, by resending the petitioner to such areas without sending those to such areas who have never served in such areas even once and such action was contended to be discriminatory, arbitrary, perverse by ignoring the relevant aspects, - 4 - including Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy. 7. At this stage, this Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner had already served in Difficult/Hard/Remote Area of Civil Hospital, Tissa [Chamba] for almost four years. Even Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy by necessary implication provides that those employees who have already served in any of such area(s) are not to be resent to these areas without considering and transferring those incumbents who have never served there even once. The petitioner has detailed the names of incumbents in Para 3 of representation, Annexure P-5, who have never served in any of these areas even once. Further, the norms governing transfers are to be uniformly and equally applied to all concerned, without discrimination, Respondent-State cannot be permitted to resort to pick and choose criteria, dehors the object intent of Clause 12 of Transfer Policy, which stands approved by the Division Bench Judgement in Sushila Sharma [CWP No. 1105 of 2006 dated 27.08.2007]. In these circumstances, this Court observes, that the directions passed in the case of Janak Raj [Annexure P-3] - 5 - supra have been misread by the State Authorities, which, nowhere permits or mandates the State Authorities to resort to transfer(s) dehors of Clause 12 of Transfer Policy so as to result in pick and choose and discriminatory application of norms, which ex-facie reveals malice-in-law, arbitrariness in State action. 8. Without commenting further and after taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court disposes of the instant petition, at this stage, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities, including Respondent No.2 Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to consider/examine the representation [Annexure P-5 colly] in the light of Clause 12 of Transfer Policy; without discriminating the petitioner and then to pass appropriate orders in the light of Clause 12 and accordance with law; after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner; on or before 21.06.2025; (ii). Till the decision of representation, the operation of Impugned Transfer Orders dated 6.6.2025 [Annexure P-2} transferring the petitioner from Civil Hospital, Palampur [Kangra] to Civil Hospital - 6 - Bharmour, [Chamba], shall remain stayed, qua the petitioner; (iii) State Authorities, including Respondent No.2 shall permit the petitioner to work as Staff Nurse, at CH Palampur, [Kangra], as aforesaid. (iv) No order as to costs. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Vacation Judge 11th June, 2025 (tm)