2025:HHC:23727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10367 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sarita Rani Verdhan …….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. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Gurinder Singh Panwar, Advocates for respondent No.4.r __________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Trained Graduate Teacher (Medical) in Government Senior Secondary School, Naura, District Kangra, H.P., is aggrieved of order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P2), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School, Jaunta, District Kangra, H.P. within a short span of one month. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the same has been issued in violation of transfer policy, which prescribes minimum 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23727 tenure of three years at one station. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Naura, District Kangra one month back but on the basis of D.O. note issued by Extra Constitutional Authority, she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School, Jaunta, District Kangra, H.P. that too adjust a private respondent. Besides above, it has been also argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of transfer family life of petitioner may get disturbed for the reason that her husband is a practicing advocate at Palampur from where Government Senior Secondary School, Jaunta, District Kangra, H.P. is approximately 80-90 km. 3. Learned counsel representing the respondents has placed on record instructions dated 21.07.2025 issued under the signatures of Director of School Education, perusal thereof reveals that prior to petitioner’s posting at Government Senior Secondary School, Naura, District Kangra, H.P. she had been continuously working within the radius of 30 km for last 10-11 years. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that though petitioner had not completed the normal tenure of posting at her present place of posting Government Senior Secondary School, Naura, District Kangra, H.P. but since she remained posted in and around afore station for approximately 10 years, she can be said 3 2025:HHC:23727 to have completed normal tenure of posting of three years at one station. While referring to judgment of Division Bench of this Court in “Monika Katna Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.” in CWP No.2734 of 2024 decided on 06.06.2025, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that clubbing has been held to be permissible and as such clubbing of tenure at previous stations of posting has been held to be permissible. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 5. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent, who besides adopting the submissions made by learned Addition Advocate General also apprised this Court that in past petitioner has been a recipient of D.O. note and as such plea raised at her behest with regard to D.O. note may not be accepted. 6. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner remained posted at stations which were at a distance of more than 30 km, plea of clubbing sought to be raised by respondents may not be applicable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 30 km for last 11 years. Coupled with the fact that Division Bench of this Court in Monika Katna (supra) has 4 2025:HHC:23727 already held clubbing of previous posting to be permissible, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, if it is so plea of D.O. note, if any, issued by Extra Constitutional Authority thereby recommending transfer of the petitioner may not be of much relevance. Issue with regard to petitioner being recipient of D.O. note in past has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, who states that since no harm, if any, was caused to any of the employee with the D.O. note allegedly used by her in procuring her previous posting, question of being recipient of D.O. note may not be of much consequences. Since the petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of posting, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the transfer order. 8. However, taken note of the adverse family circumstances which came to be apprised to this Court during the proceedings of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of one week, praying therein for cancellation/adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously, preferably 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 5 2025:HHC:23727 order, taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transfer station. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 2. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 22, 2025 (rupsi)