IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19683 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Saroj Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Kanungo at FK Circle Laungani, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, laying therein challenge to order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to FK Circle, Pangna, Sub Tehsil Pangna, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, he should not have any grouse with regard to his transfer vide order dated 08.12.2025. 3. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that husband of the petitioner is also working in the Education Department and at present, is posted at District Mandi, coupled with the fact that daughter of the petitioner is studying in 10th Class, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within two days for cancellation/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case as well as final examination of her daughter, which is scheduled to be held in the month of March, 2026. Aforesaid representation shall be decided by the competent authority within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of observations made hereinabove. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner within stipulated time is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be 2 compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 11, 2025 (sunil) 3