IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17753 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Saritha Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ward Sister in IGMC, Shimla, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-5), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, in time bound manner. 2. 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 states that transfer of the petitioner has been effected pursuant to orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation, whereby it has been directed that appropriate number of Nurses are posted in different medical institutions. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, though suggests that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to sympathetically consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 thereupon taking note of the fact that minor son of the petitioner is suffering from seizure and as such, required to be taken care by her mother i.e. petitioner herein. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)