IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17573 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mamta …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pavinder, 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 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is a lady constable and at present is working at 4th IRBn, Jangal Beri, District, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 07.11.2025(Annexure P-3), whereby she has been transferred from 4th IRBn, Hamirpur to 5th IRBn, Bassi, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that she has remained posted in 4th IRBn for long, but is unable to go to 5th IRBn on account of adverse family circumstances. Since husband of the petitioner is working in the Education Department and at present is posted at Jhanjiyani, Barsar Block, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Hamirpur, there is none to take care of her minor child, who at present is 2 ½ years. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that once it is an admitted fact that petitioner has remained posted in 4th IRBn for quite long, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while ordering transfer from one Battalion to other Battalion. He further submits that otherwise also petitioner herein being member of police force is expected to serve in any part of the State as per the direction of the higher authorities. 4. Though, having taken note of the fat that petitioner has remained posted in 4th IRBn for more than seven years, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that on account of adverse family circumstances, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, it may be difficult for the petitioner to join at 5th IRBn, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances, this 3 Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two days, praying therein for her transfer/adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. 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 order. Till the time, representation, if any, filed within a period of two days is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 13 2025 (shankar)