IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Manu Lata …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at GSSS Dadahu, District Sirmaur, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P- 2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to stations, mentioned in the representation, on the ground of couple case and medical grounds. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anshul Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 such, in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, she deserves to be transferred from afore station to a station, convenient to her, on account of the fact that her husband, who is Government employee, is working as a Junior Engineer and posted at Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Bangana, District Una. It has been further submitted that since petitioner is seven months pregnant, she needs intensive care and for that purpose, presence of family members is very much required. 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 respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that mere fact that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting may not be a ground to seek transfer. He states that otherwise also, petitioner can always avail maternity leave under Rules. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by way of an affidavit that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and her husband is posted at Bangana, District Una, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, besides providing concession to employees on the ground of couple case, also provides that prayer made on behalf of employee for transfer/adjustment on medical grounds shall also be 3 considered, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents, inasmuch as deciding the pending representation of the petitioner in light of provisions contained in the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. 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, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, 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 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, relevant provisions whereof have been already taken note hereinabove. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)