IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13274 of 2025 Decided on: 19.08.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mangla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Considering the order impugned in this petition and the submissions urged for the parties, reply is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner had instituted Mangla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 pleading therein that:- She was serving as Trained Graduate Treacher at Government Senior Secondary School Kamalar, District Sirmour, H.P; In view of adverse family circumstances being faced by her, she preferred a representation on 21.03.2024 seeking her adjustment; The said representation was followed by reminder dated 14.05.2025; The representations were not being considered and decided. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy while also keeping in view petitioner’s adverse family circumstances within ten days. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 considered petitioner’s representation and rejected it on 24.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved against rejection of her representation, the petitioner has moved this writ petition. 4. While considering petitioner’s representation, respondent No.2 has though taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner is working at Government Senior Secondary School Kamalra, District Sirmour since 24.02.2022 or in other words, she has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting but declined to accept her request for transfer from the said area on the 2 CWP No. 10164/2025 decided on 25.06.2025 3 ground that petitioner’s present place of posting falls in soft area of District Sirmour and therefore, in view of para 12.1 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 regulating transfer of State Government employees, petitioner could not be posted at a station of choice as a matter of right; It is the discretion of the State Government to transfer any employee anywhere in the State keeping in view its administrative exigency/convenience. 5. There cannot be any dispute in respect of discretion vested with the State Government to post/transfer its employees keeping in view administrative exigency/convenience, however, at the same time, the difficulties faced by the employees are also required to be kept in view. In the instant case, the petitioner has pleaded that her husband-Sh. Shashi Kant, who is also a Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) in the respondent-Education Department, is presently posted at Government Model Senior Secondary School Baldwara, District Mandi, where, he is serving w.e.f. 13.09.2022. Thus, petitioner’s husband has also almost completed his normal tenure at his present place of posting. It has further been pleaded that petitioner’s husband during his entire service career till date has not been posted in his home district and has served away from his native place. That the petitioner and her husband have not been accommodated at one station till date. Accordingly, the petitioner has invoked Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy, which provides as under: - 4 “In case wife and husband both are working under the State Government, efforts should be made to post them at one place or near places as far as possible, subject to vacancy.” The petitioner has also projected that her husband is not keeping well, requires surgical intervention and aftercare. That petitioner’s father has passed away in December, 2024 leaving behind her aged mother. That petitioner’s in-law had died long back. Petitioner does not have any alternate support for managing her three years old twins; The circumstances make it difficult for her to discharge her family obligations while discharging her service. The impugned order dated 24.07.2025 does not make reference to the adverse family circumstances faced by the petitioner. In terms of Mangla Devi2, the competent authority was directed to decide petitioner’s representation inter-alia keeping in view her adverse family circumstances. The impugned order proceeds on the premise as if the petitioner is seeking transfer to a soft area, whereas, petitioner’s case is for transfer on completion of normal tenure to a station, in accordance with Clause 5.4 of the Transfer Policy keeping in view of her adverse family circumstances. In fact in para13 viii) of the writ petition, petitioner has requested for adjustment as a couple case & in four tehsils in three districts mentioned therein. 5 Keeping in view above, the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to move a fresh comprehensive representation along with her husband-Sh. Shashi Kant within one week seeking transfer from their respective places of posting to the respondent No.2-Competent authority. In case, such representation is so made, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.2/competent authority, in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy, keeping in view observation made above within two weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 19, 2025 Judge rohit