IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kalashnu Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents- State. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Patwari at PC Bassa, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to PC Janjehli, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh vice Sh. Bal Krishan, private respondent No.4. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh because petitioner has been not permitted to complete her normal 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 tenure of posting at present place of posting, rather she has been transferred within short span of two years. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.4 has filed reply, wherein it is stated that petitioner has been working at the present place of posting for more than two years and in past, she herself had given consent to be transferred to PC, Janjehli. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also filed reply, wherein they have stated that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and her transfer has been effected on the basis of consent given by her. 5. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already worked for more than two years at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she had given consent to be transferred from present place of posting to PC Janjehli, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order, which is upheld. However, having taken note of ground of couple case as well as adverse family circumstances, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of two days to the competent authority for her adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority 3 concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of the fact that husband of the petitioner is a Government teacher and at present is working at Ner-Chowk and petitioner herein is not medically fit and as such, requires constant care of her husband as well as other family members. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (shankar)