IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17749 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Reena Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby her representation dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-12) filed in terms of order dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 14379 of 2025, came to be rejected on the ground that applicant/petitioner has not been able to point out any adverse family circumstances, for which, she can be transferred at a desired station. 2. While making this Court peruse afore impugned order dated 01.11.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 argued that the representation dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-12) specifically contained detailed reasons highlighting adverse family circumstances; however, the same were conveniently ignored by the competent authority, while deciding the representation. Having carefully perused the representation dated 13.10.2025 vis-à-vis order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Though, perusal of the impugned order reveals that petitioner was afforded opportunity of being heard, but there is no mention, if any, with regard to adverse family circumstances, as indicated by the petitioner in her representation dated 13.10.2025, competent authority conveniently ignored the reasons assigned in the representation dated 13.10.2025 and wrongly proceeded to record that no adverse family circumstances ever came to be pointed out by the petitioner at the time of personal hearing. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse order impugned in the instant proceedings, states that though petitioner was afforded opportunity of being heard, but despite opportunity, he failed to point out any adverse family circumstance and as such, there was no occasion, if any, to the competent authority to decide the representation on the basis of adverse family circumstances. He further states that otherwise also petitioner has not 3 completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, rather she on one pretext or other has been approaching this Court by filing frivolous petition. However, this Court, having perused the impugned order vis-à-vis representation dated 13.10.2025 filed by the petitioner, is not persuaded to agreed with the afore submission of learned Additional Advocate General. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and impugned order dated 01.11.2025(Annexure P-13) is quashed and set-aside, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 13.10.2025(Annexure P-12) of the petitioner afresh sympathetically, taking note of adverse family circumstances as detailed in the representation. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07,2026 (shankar)