IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17506 of 2025 Decided on: 14th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajo Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Rajo Devi Versus State of H.P. and another2 was instituted by the petitioner with the pleadings that she was 75% disabled and left with one year for superannuation. Her grievance was that she had moved a representation to respondent No.2, seeking benefit of Clauses 5.3 and 5.5 of the transfer policy for her posting at a place convenient to her in view of her disability, but the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.5086 of 2025, decided on 07.04.2025 2 representation had not been considered and decided. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within three weeks. Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No.2 passed a consideration order on 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-3). A perusal of the aforesaid consideration order reflects that the petitioner had requested for her transfer/adjustment at Government ITI Mohin, District Mandi. Her request was declined on the ground that the post at the aforesaid station was occupied by one Sh. Gopal Chand, who was posted there w.e.f. 01.11.2023. Finding the stay of Sh. Gopal Chand at the said station only for about a year and half, petitioner’s request for adjustment at Government ITI Mohin was declined. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that within less than a month of passing the consideration order dated 08.05.2025, respondent No.2 issued an office order on 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), transferring the aforesaid Sh. Gopal Chand from Government ITI Mohin to Government ITI Bhadrota, District Mandi and one another incumbent Smt. Santosh Kumari was transferred from Government ITI Bhadrota to Government ITI Mohin, i.e. at 3 the place of posting of Sh. Gopal Chand. Prima facie, grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified as in case Sh. Gopal Chand had to be transferred from Government ITI Mohin, the petitioner being 75% disabled, ought to have been considered for adjustment at Government ITI Mohin, District Mandi. Be that as it may. 4. Since the transfer order of Sh. Gopal Chand and Smt. Santosh Kumari on mutual basis was issued by respondent No.2 on 23.05.2025, the same is not being interfered with at this stage, however, in the given facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her adjustment at a place suitable to her keeping in view her 75% disability and Clauses 5.3 & 5.5 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 against vacancy as well as persons with longer stay than prescribed in the transfer policy. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation in this regard to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today, whereafter, the said authority shall consider and decide the same in light of above observations within two weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 14, 2025 Judge Mukesh