IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10816 of 2025 Decided on: 7th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rekha Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner is serving as Panchayat Secretary in the respondent-Panchayati Raj Department. Vide office order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), she was transferred from Gram Panchayat Ghumarwin, Development Block Ghumwarin to Gram Panchayat Ratti, Development Block 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Balh. Taking exception to the aforesaid transfer order, the petitioner instituted Rekha Kumari Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. Respondent No.2- the Director Rural Development Department, Himachal Pradesh considered petitioner’s representation and rejected it under office order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner feels aggrieved against this office order and thus, has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Annexure P-1, dated 01.05.2025, issued by the State Election Commission, Himachal Pradesh, ban on transfers has been imposed due to delimitation of wards of Panchayati Raj Institutes/Urban Local Bodies. That the post of Panchayat Secretary is also covered under the aforesaid ban. Attention was also invited to letter dated 28.06.2025 (part of Annexure P-1), which states that ban on transfers imposed on 01.05.2025 shall remain in force till the completion of election process. That concurrence of Commission has to be obtained in case of transfer due to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the 2 CWP No.8990 of 2025, decided on 02.06.2025 3 petitioner further submitted that petitioner’s transfer has been effected after the imposition of ban. 4. In view of above submission and the documents placed on record, learned Assistant Advocate General was directed to have instructions from the concerned quarter. When the matter was taken up again, learned Assistant Advocate General apprised that ban has been brought into force and for effecting petitioner’s transfer, concurrence of the State Election Commission has not been obtained. 5. In view of above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, a case has been made out for quashing and setting aside the impugned office orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned office order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned office order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), rejecting petitioner’s representation against transfer order dated 22.05.2025, is also quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh