IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10003 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Reena Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and 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. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Reply filed on behalf of respondents suggests that impugned order dated 31.05.2025, whereby petitioner herein has been transferred from CH Bhawarna, District Kangra to CH Rehan, District Kangra, has been issued on account of the fact that earlier petitioner had allegedly got herself transferred from CH Bhawarna to CH Fatehpur, on the basis of some D.O. note. Besides above, it has been further stated in the reply that petitioner has mostly remained posted in District Kangra, that too in and around Rehan. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that though petitioner has been transferred within District Kangra, that too on account of the fact that for considerable time, she remained posted 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 within the vicinity of Rehan, but in case petitioner files representation to the competent authority for her adjustment at suitable place, same shall be considered in accordance with the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, as has been stated in the reply of the respondents, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of four days for her adjustment at a nearby station, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. 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 thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at convenient station on the ground of adverse 3 family circumstances. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Interim order dated 21.06.2025 stands hereby vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)