IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20265 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Meena Kumari …….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: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Forest Guard at Nature Park Kasol, Forest Division Parbati under Forest Circle Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., is aggrieved of order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Forest Beat Grahan, Block Kasol, Range Kasol, under Forest Division Parbati, Forest Circle Kullu. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who at present is in family way, is that though she has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but having taken note of her medical condition, she ought not have been transferred to Forest Beat Grahan, which is a remote and field intensive forest area and there is no adequate medical facility. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 states that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, she cannot have any grouse with regard to her transfer, however, he fairly states that in the event of representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, on account of her medial condition, same shall be considered expeditiously, in terms of provisions contained in the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is in family way and there are no adequate medical facilities available at the transferred station, this 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 within a period of one week to the competent authority, praying therein for cancellation of transfer order or adjustment at a convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks, in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds. Ordered 3 accordingly. Till the time, representation, if filed within the time stipulated by this Court, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 22, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)