IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14878/2025 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Pushpa Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel of the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. The case projected by the petitioner is that she was appointed as Clerk on 27.10.2008 on contract basis and posted at Block Development Officer Mehla, District Chamba, H.P. Petitioner remained posted in the said office till 20.05.2015. The said station is stated to be a sub cadre area. Petitioner’s services were regularized at the aforesaid station on 21.05.2015. Petitioner was transferred on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 28.10.2015 to the office of Block Development Officer Chamba, District Chamba, where she served till 15.09.2021. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and in that capacity was transferred to the office of Block Development Bhattiyat, District Chamba on 16.09.2021. She was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 30.05.2022 at the same station. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 11.09.2025, under which, she was transferred from Block Development Bhattiyat, District Chamba to Block Development Officer Chamba, District Chamba and also against the office order of even date (Annexure P-2) relieving her from Block Development Bhattiyat pursuant to transfer order dated 11.09.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner though admitted that the petitioner has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting i.e. office of Block Development Bhattiyat, District Chamba but submitted that she is facing certain adverse family circumstances and is also entitled to the concession available to couple working under the State Government in terms of Clause 5.4 of the applicable Transfer Policy. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, she is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of her grievances against the impugned order, whereafter, respondent No.2 be directed to consider and decide the representation, to be made by 3 her, in accordance with law, within time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 3. In view of above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority within a week, seeking her suitable transfer/adjustment, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of applicable Transfer Policy, within a further period of ten days. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. It shall be open for the petitioner to avail the leave of kind due till the decision of the representation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th September, 2025(rohit)