IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 20973 of 2025 Decided on: 29 .07 .2026 Dr. Supriya Kaushal … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s S. Partha Swami and Sarthak Upadhyay, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. : Respondent No. 3 ex parte. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Writ of Certiorari: To quash and set-aside the impugned Office Orders/Rosters (Annexures P-2 and P-4) mandating unauthorized duties at CHC Tauni Devi, being ultra vires, illegal, and violative of the Petitioner's service conditions. ii) Writ of Certiorari: To quash and set-aside the impugned letter dated 04-10-2025 (Annexure P-12) directing the withholding of the Petitioner's salary w.e.f. 22-09-2025, being arbitrary, illegal, and against the principles of natural justice. iii) Writ of Mandamus: To direct the Respondents to immediately release the entire withheld salary of the Petitioner from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 22-09-2025 onwards, along with all consequential arrears and interest accrued thereon, within a specified time frame. iv) Writ of Mandamus: To direct the Respondents to ensure the Petitioner is posted exclusively at her sanctioned place of posting (PHC Kot) and is assigned duties strictly in accordance with her designation, cadre norms, and government policy, thereby preventing any further unauthorized deputation or arbitrary duty allocation. v) Writ of Mandamus: To direct Respondent No. and 2 to initiate a high-level, independent inquiry into the administrative harassment, abuse of authority, gender discrimination, and alleged misconduct by Respondent No. 3 (CMO) and Respondent No. 4 (BMO), and to take consequential disciplinary action against them in accordance with the relevant service rules.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the officers, who were at the helm of affairs when the petition was filed, stand transferred. He submits that interest of justice would be served, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to serve and perform her duties at the place where she is actually posted. 3. The petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall be allowed to perform her duties in the institution where she stands transferred and she shall not be forced to serve in any other institution by being deputed there. It is further observed 3 that the petitioner be allowed to serve at the said station for a normal tenure. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, a warning notice has been issued to her on 13.02.2026 and that notice may be quashed. 5. In the light of the fact that it is a subsequent development, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, she may approach the Court afresh as far as the issue of warning notice is concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29 , 2026 (narender)