IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10105 of 2025 Date of Decision:24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surekha Kumari …….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. P.P.Chauhan, 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, for the respondents/State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as CHT in GPCS, Khoronwala, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore school to GCPS Dighali, Education Block Khoronwala, District Sirmour vice Mr. Surender Sharma. 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 not sustainable in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the eye of law because same is not in consonance with the transfer policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she was given the present place of posting on the basis of representation made by her pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, there was otherwise no occasion to transfer petitioner from present place of posting to other school before completion of normal tenure of posting. 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 and Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. While fairly acknowledging that petitioner was given posting at present place of posting pursuant to representation made by the petitioner in terms of order dated 30.01.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 478 of 2023, learned Additional Advocate General states that at relevant time, husband of the petitioner was also posted near the station, where husband of the petitioner is working, but now he stands transferred to Nahan. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that otherwise also bare perusal of impugned transfer order clearly reveals that petitioner has remained posted in and around present place of posting 3 for considerable time. He states that since petitioner has been transferred to a school, which is at a distance of 13 KM from the present place of posting, no interference is called for. 4. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent No.5, also adopted the arguments/submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Careful perusal of order dated 30.01.2023, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 478 of 2023 (Annexure P-2) reveals that petitioner, who at relevant time, was working as CHT at Government Primary School, Nagheta, District Sirmour, had approached this court with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to transfer her from present place of posting, as same is very far from the station where her husband is posted. In terms of aforesaid order, respondents, while considering the representation filed by the petitioner, posted her at present place of posting. 6. Though, Mr. P.P.Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but fact remains that after passing of order dated 30.01.2023, petitioner has remained posted at present place of posting for more than two years. Besides above, he was unable to dispute that now at present husband of the petitioner stands transferred to Nahan and as such ground of couple 4 case, otherwise sought to be taken, may not be available at this stage. 7. Moreover, this Court finds that distance between present place of posting and transferred station is less than 12 KM and same also falls within soft area. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impunged transfer order and as such, same is upheld. 8. However, having taken note of the fact that husband of the petitioner stands transferred to Nahan, 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 transfer to a convenient station, so that her family life does not get disturbed, , which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days, taking note of transfer policy. 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 on the ground of couple case. Till the time representation, 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 5 the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24,2025 (shankar)