IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.7781 and 7777 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 7781 of 2024 Manoj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 7777 of 2024 Shilpy Rawat …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases coupled with the fact that petitioners herein, who are husband and wife, are aggrieved of order dated 30.7.2024, this Court 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 after having clubbed both the cases, heard them together and now same are being decided vide common judgment. 2. Petitioners namely Manoj Kumar and Shilpy Rawat, who at present have been working as Ayurvedic Medical Officers at GAHC Kardial, Kangra and GAHC Kaholi, Kangra respectively are aggrieved of order dated 30.7.2024, whereby they have been transferred from afore stations to GAHC Chokhang, Lahaul and Spiti and GAHC Losar Lahaul and Spiti. Though it has been fairly admitted by the petitioners that they have completed their normal tenure at present place of postings, but their precise grouse is that they being husband and wife coupled with the fact that they are working in one department ought to have been given posting at one station or some nearby station, as suchthey have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside impugned transfer order dated 30.7.2024, on the ground of couple case. 3. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, while referring to the transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that a couple working in government department is required to be given posting at one station or nearby station so that their family life does not get disturbed, however, in the case at hand, though both the petitioners have been transferred to GAHC Chokhang, Lahaul and Spiti and GAHC Losar 3 Lahaul and Spiti, but distance between afore stations is more than 90kms. He further submitted that petitioner namely Manoj Kumar is suffering with locomotor disability to the extent of 45% and as such, he is otherwise not fit to be posted in Lahaul and Spiti, which is hard/tribal area. 4. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that since both the petitioners have completed their normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that they have never served in tribal area, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order, however Mr. Kahol fairly admitted that on account of couple case, both the petitioners should have been given posting at one station or nearby station. He fairly stated that in case the petitioners represent to the government with regard to redressal of their grievance, same shall be considered sympathically. 5. Having taken note of the fact that petitioners have already completed normal tenure of posting at their respective places, though this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having take note of the fact that petitioners are working in the same department coupled with the fact that transfer policy itself provides for posting of couple at one station or nearby 4 station, deems it fit to dispose of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation within one week, praying therein for their adjustment at a convenient place, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week thereafter. 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 a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case. While doing the needful in terms of the instant order, respondents may also take note of the fact that petitioner Manoj Kumar is 45% disabled and as such, it would be otherwise difficult for him to sustain in tribal area. Till the time, representation having been filed by the petitioners is decided by the competent authority, interim order passed in favour of the petitioners shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 manjit