IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17391 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anita …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Bashut, Education Block Seraj-2, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It has been averred in the petition that mother-in-law of the petitioner, who is 77 years old, is suffering from chronic ailments such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and there is none to take care of her. Since petitioner’s present place of posting is far away from her native place, she is unable to take care of her old aged mother-in-law, as such, has approached the respondents by way of representation, praying therein for transfer, but since no heed has been paid to the same, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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 petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she has not placed on record any conclusive evidence to substantiate her role and responsibilities within the family. 4. True it is that though it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station and normal 3 tenure of posting at one station is three years, but since Transfer Policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court, without going into the merits of the present, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. 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 thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 10, 2025 (Sunil)