IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15936 of 2025 Decided on: 10th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamta Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the relief prayed for in this writ petition, nature of the order impugned herein as well as the order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called for. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Mamta Kumari Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 was preferred by the petitioner seeking decision of her representation for transfer from GSSS Ambota, District Una on the ground that she had completed normal tenure at the aforesaid place. Petitioner had also submitted therein that she was suffering from 40% permanent disability in relation to both eyes. Placing reliance upon Savita Gupta Versus State of H.P. & Ors.3, request for transfer was made. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it within two weeks from the date of its presentation. Petitioner thereafter represented to respondent No.2 on 22.07.2025 seeking transfer from GSSS Ambota, District Una in view of her 40% permanent visual disability and the provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Respondent No.2 decided the aforesaid representation on 28.07.2025 and rejected it as under:- “The report/comments were sought from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Una. After perusal of record it is revealed that the petitioner has been working in District Una since 22.04.2022. In her representation she submitted that she is 40% permanent disability in relation to both eyes. As per inter District transfer policy clause (x) point No.3 which 2 CWP No.11194/2025, decided on 11.07.2025 3 CWP No.6306 of 2024, decided on 05.07.2024 3 read as ts0 ch0Vh0 o lh0 ,.M oh0 laoxZ ds 60 izfr”kr ls vf/kd viaxrk okys v/;kidks dks ,d ftys ls nwljs ftys esa vUrftZyk LFkkukUrj.k uhfr ds vUrxZr LFkkukUrj.k gsrq dksbZ U;qure le; vof/k fu/kkZfjr ugha gksxhAÞ 4. The aforesaid order is not in consonance with law. Firstly, the petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of three years at the present place of posting. Secondly, it is pertinent to notice that Clause 5.3 of the applicable transfer policy provides concession to handicapped employees as under:- “Clause No.5.3:- Concessions to handicapped employees: As far as possible, Officers/Officials with 60% and above physical disability should be given stations of their choice. In the circumstances where it is absolutely not possible, subject to vacancy, they should at least be given postings on road heads or convenient stations where bus service is available. It is possible that at the time of making postings the information on physical disability is not available because of which a person with physical disability is posted to any inconvenient stations. In order to rule out such eventualities and the resultant hardships to the people with physical disability, the entries about the physical disability should be made in service books, incumbency statements, seniority lists and any other documents relied upon by the department for making transfers and postings.” In Savita Gupta3, it was held that in order to give effect to provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, benchmark disability mentioned in Clause 5.3 of office memorandum dated 10.07.2013 (transfer policy) should be read as 40% as mentioned in the Act and not 60%. More so, when reservation in jobs in the 4 State is given to individuals suffering from disability to the extent of 40%. It appears that respondent No.3 while deciding petitioner’s representation under the impugned order did not notice Savita Gupta3 even though he was directed to keep in view the aforesaid decision in Mamta Kumari2. 5. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent that impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the decision in Mamta Kumari2 and the observations made hereinabove, within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh