IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9823 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Babli …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government High School Kand, Bagiara, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Mandli, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surinder Prakash, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge to impugned transfer order has been made on the ground that same has been issued on the basis of DO note issued by some extra constitutional authority. He states that on account of heart disease, petitioner is unable to join at transferred station. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. He further states that though there is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of DO note issued by some politician, but even otherwise such fact may not be of much relevance for the reason that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of illness of the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition 3 reserving liberty to the petitioner file representation to the competent authority within two days for her adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds, which shall be decided by the competent authority within 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 taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Sunil)