IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9785 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Upasana Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K.Sharma, 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, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School Nalti, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Kanda, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tarun K.Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law because the same has been passed in violation of Transfer Policy. Mr. Sharma, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, she could not have been transferred. Besides above, it has also been submitted on behalf of petitioner that impugned transfer order has been issued on the basis of DO note. 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, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from the present place of posting to Government Senior Secondary School Kanda, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. He submitted that though petitioner may not have completed three years at present place of posting, but fact remains that she has remained posted within a radius of 30 Kms of Hamirpur for the last ten years. He submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed in CWP No. 2734 of 2024, titled as Monika Katna Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. has already held that clubbing is permissible. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. He further states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of 2 posting at present place of posting, factum of issuance of DO note is of no relevance. 4. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that finding returned by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8605 of 2023, titled as Anurag Chadda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., has been overruled, as a result thereof, clubbing of previous posting, while computing total service period at one station, has been held to be valid. If it is so, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at one station, factum of issuance of DO note, thereby recommending transfer of the petitioner may not be of much relevance. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of fact that husband of the petitioner is also serving as Superintendent Grade-II in the office Deputy Directorate, Hamirpur, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within two days for her adjustment at a convenient station on account of couple case, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall 3 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 the ground of couple case. 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4