IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17209 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Himanshu Kundi …….Petitioner Versus H.P. Gramin Bank and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby representation dated 17.10.2025, having been filed by her in terms of order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.16938 of 2025, titled as Himanshu Kundi Vs. H.P. Gramin Bank and Another, came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that respondents disposed of the representation of the petitioner in mechanical manner, without bothering to look into the grounds raised in the same. Mr. Dhiman, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that had respondents looked into the grounds raised in the representation, wherein specific ground with regard to adverse family 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 circumstances was taken, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to either retain her at Shimla or transfer her to Chamba, would have been considered by the respondents-Bank. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing respondents-Bank, has placed on record communication dated 07.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Chief Manager (HRD), H.P. Gramin Bank, Head Office, Mandi, stating therein that representation filed by the petitioner was duly considered, but since on account of administrative exigency, it is not possible to retain her at Shimla, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has been serving as Office Assistant in the respondents- Bank. On 28.04.2025, she was relieved from Branch Office, Shimla, with direction to join at Branch Office, Jathia Devi. Petitioner joined at Jathia Devi, but within a period of four months of her posting at afore station, she has been now transferred and posted at CTS Cell, Mandi, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2025. In the afore background, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.16938 of 2025, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 30.10.2025, 3 thereby issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. Though respondents, in terms of afore order passed by this Court, decided the representation, but failed to consider the request of the petitioner to retain her at Shimla on account of adverse family circumstances. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ajay Dhiman, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that respondents while doing the needful in terms of order passed by this Court in CWP No.16938 of 2025, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, because neither opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the petitioner, nor grounds taken by her in the representation ever came to be dealt with. 6. If the representation filed by the petitioner is perused in its entirety, she specifically raised ground of adverse family circumstances by stating that her husband is working at Chamba and in the event of her being transferred to Mandi, there would be none to take care of her minor children and respondents merely on the ground of administrative exigency proceeded to reject the representation filed by the petitioner. 4 7. Though Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing respondents-Bank, attempted to argue that since petitioner has acquired special knowledge in CTS, she has been purposely posted at Headquarter, Mandi, where entire work of CTS has been transferred, but he was unable to dispute that there are number of other persons, having sufficient knowledge of CTS in respondents- Bank, who can be posted at Mandi. 8. Leaving everything aside, once this Court is satisfied that respondents while considering the representation of the petitioner have failed to look into the ground of adverse family circumstances raised by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to quash and set aside the orders dated 17.10.2025 and 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-8 Colly), with the further direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week. 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 thereupon taking note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)