IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9771 of 2025 Date of Decision:18.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surekha Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as Language Teacher in Government High School, Jabri, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been ordered to be transferred from afore school to Government High School, Tahoo U/c Government Senior Secondary School Tharola, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. While fairly admitting factum of petitioner’s having completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since mother of the petitioner has recently undergone major surgery and she is in need of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 constant care, impugned transfer order, thereby transferring the petitioner from the present place of posting to Government High School, Tahoo, which is at a distance of 100 KM, needs to be interfered. While making this Court peruse averments contained in the petition as well as other documents adduced on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being single child is required to be posted in the vicinity of Shimla or nearby places, especially when there is none in the family to take care of her ailing mother. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise representing by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there is no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record and taking note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, though there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but having taken note of peculiar facts and 3 circumstances i.e. illness of mother, coupled with the fact that petitioner is a single child, there is none to take care of her mother in the family, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee, to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 18,2025 (shankar)