IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19391 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Proxy Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Una, is aggrieved of order dated 25.11.2025, whereby she has been transferred from afore station to office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, vice respondent No.4- Bhag Singh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ankit Dhiman, learned proxy counsel appearing for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Clauses 4.3 and 8 of Transfer Policy, which provide for certain concessions to handicap persons. He states that since petitioner is 73% disabled, she ought to - 2 - have been given station of choice. He further states that respondent No.4 was transferred to the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sarkaghat seven months back, but on the basis of DO note issued by respondent No.5, he has been again brought back to Una. 3. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly states that petitioner has been working at Una since 1999 and as such, cannot have any grouse qua her transfer to Sarkaghat, especially when it is not in dispute that she belongs to State Cadre. He states that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of DO note and otherwise she cannot have any objection with regard to transfer of the private respondent, who has been posted at Una as per requirement. 4. Though petitioner herein has specifically alleged that respondent No.4 has been brought back to Una in place of the petitioner on the basis of DO note, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has been working at Una for more than 25 years, she cannot be permitted to raise ground of DO note. It is also not in dispute that petitioner belongs to State Cadre and as such, she can be posted anywhere, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is disabled to the extent of 73% coupled with the fact that - 3 - Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for certain concessions, though this court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, but deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within two days, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of disability, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of disability of the petitioner as well as vacancy, which is likely to come up on 31.3.2026 on account of retirement of one Smt. Neera Rani. Till the time, representation is decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge