IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 12210 of 2025 Decided on 28.07.2025 Monika Rani ......petitioner Versus State of H.P & Others ...respondents Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State. 2. Considering the nature of the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply is required to be called from appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is being heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 3. Pursuant to decision in Sarita Kumari, TGT (Arts) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2, respondent No.2 passed office order on 23.07.2025 in terms whereof Smt. Sarita Kumari (respondent No.4) was transferred to GSSS Kachhiari Distt. Kangra vice the present petitioner and to make way for posting of respondent No.4 at Kachhiari, the petitioner in turn was transferred to GHS Chari u/c GSSS Mehla Distt., Chamba. 4. The petitioner’s grievance is that her husband is serving as TGT (Arts) at GHS Baidi u/c GMSSS Dhugiari Distt. Kangra. That while transferring the petitioner to Chari, Mehla, Distt. Chamba, the respondents did not keep in view Clause 5.4 of the comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013 regulating transfer of State Government employees which grants concession to the couples working under the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred a representation highlighting the aforesaid issue and her domestic problems to respondent No.2 on 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). The said representation has not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a time-bound manner. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 2CWP No.10889 of 2025 decided on 08.07.2025, 3 Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 28, 2025 Judge Ankit