IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9917 of 2025 Date of Decision:20.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonia Koundal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Ichhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 28.05.2025(Annexure P-1), issued by Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby afore authority, while allowing the representation filed by one Sh. Sanjay Kumar TGT(Non Medical), transferred petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Ichhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh to Government Senior Secondary School Dhotali, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy because petitioner has been not permitted to complete her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. He states that while calculating the period of stay at present place of posting, respondent has clubbed her previous service rendered in District Kangra, which is not permissible in terms judgment passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8605 of 2023, tilted as Anurag Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that though petitioner could not have been transferred from afore station, but even then she is ready and willing to join some other school, but within the vicinity of her native place for the reason that there is none to take care of her husband and son, who at present are residing in Nagrota, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since judgment passed in Anurag Chadha case (supra) has been already overruled by the Division 3 Bench of this Court, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while clubbing the previous service rendered by the petitioner for calculating the actual period of stay at present place of posting. He states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with transfer policy. 4. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, as detailed hereinabove, coupled with the fact that she is ready and willing to file representation, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station on ground of adverse family circumstances, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority 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, 4 if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of three days, 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. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 20,2025 (shankar)