IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13939 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonika Chandel …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Bakras, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, which is a sub cadre area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in para-6 of the petition, on the ground that there is none to take care of old aged mother-in-law of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner, who is 84% disabled. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that she has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but on account of adverse family circumstances, she is required to be transferred from the present place of posting to one of the schools, as indicated in para-6 of the petition, on account of adverse family circumstances. 2. 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 since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, she is estopped from filing the present petition. 3. No doubt, in the case at hand petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting, but bare perusal of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, clearly suggests that an employee can seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances and for that purpose, there is no requirement of minimum tenure. Though, at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that petitioner is a contractual employee and as such, she cannot be availed the benefit of transfer policy, however this Court is not persuaded to agree with 3 learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that transfer policy, if read in its entirety, nowhere makes any distinction between regular employee or contractual employee. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decided the representation dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. 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 transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29,2025 (shankar)