Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18147 (HP)

LATA THAKUR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/10117/2025 · 2025-07-29

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10117 of 2025 Date of Decision:29.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lata Thakur …….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. Rishi Tandon, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School Chandpur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from afore school to Government High School, Solag Jurasi u/c Government Senior Secondary School Dhar Tatoh, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rishi Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order has 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 been passed in violation of transfer policy, which provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station. He states that petitioner has not been permitted to complete her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, rather within a period of 17 days, she has been transferred from afore station that too with a view to adjust private respondent, who throughout remained posted in District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Pursuant to order dated 24.06.2025, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, which is taken on record. Perusal of aforesaid report clearly reveals that petitioner Smt. Lata Thakur, TGT (Arts) has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Chandpur, District Bilaspur to Government High School Jurasi u/c Government Senior Secondary School Dhar Tatoh, Bilaspur vice Smt. Amri Devi vide office order dated 04.06.2025 by clubbing her previous posting/ stay within 30 Kms. Petitioner remained posted for considerable time in District Bilaspur that too within the radius of 30 KMs. Since 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 others, has upheld the memorandum dated 27.10.2023, which provides for clubbing of stay for the purpose of transfer of employees of the Education Department, 3 no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned transfer order. 4. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioner has been transferred to a station, which is at a distance of 22 KMs from the present place of posting. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that respondent No.3 also remained posted in District Bilaspur for considerable time, but such fact may not be relevant for the reason that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner has been transferred at the instance of private respondent, rather impugned transfer order has been issued in public interest. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, which came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority for adjustment at a convenient station within a period of three days, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an 4 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29,2025 (shankar)