IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10665 of 2025 Date of Decision:04.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nirmala Devi …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as DPE/ Lecturer (Physical Education) at Government Senior Secondary School, Banikhet, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 30.05.2025, whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School, Hatli, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that she has completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground that there is none to take care of her son, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 who at present is studying in Class 11th at Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. Husband of the petitioner, who is also government employee, is posted at Pangi and in case, petitioner is transferred from present place of posting, there would be none to take care of her son, who is otherwise in crucial stage of his career. 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 though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, present petition deserves dismissal, but representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for cancellation of transfer order/adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances, shall be considered in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 to the competent authority within a period of two days, paying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station, enabling her to take care of her school going children, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten 3 days, taking note of the fact that husband of the petitioner is also government employee and at present is posted at Pangi. 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, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of two 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. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 04,2025 (shankar)