IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14419 of 2025 Date of Decision: 8.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Rajo Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors/ … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School Ghariach, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby she has made prayer to transfer her from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground of adverse family circumstances and couple case. It is averred in the petition that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and as such, she is required to be transferred to one of the stations of choice on the ground of couple case as her 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 husband is also working in the same department at Government Senior Secondary School Sunhi, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Besides above, it has also been averred that old age mother in law of the petitioner is bed-ridden and there is none to take care of her and as such, she is required to be posted near her native place, enabling her to take care of her old age mother in law. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who states that mere completion of tenure at one station cannot be a ground to seek transfer, rather in that regard prerogative is of employer. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record that petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that her husband is also working in the same department and mother in law of the petitioner is bed-ridden, her prayer for trans- fer/adjustment, needs to be accepted. 3. 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 direction to the respondents/competent authority to de- cide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Or- dered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 3 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand dis- posed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 8, 2025 manjit