IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1259 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sarita Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Peon in the Office of Child Development Project Officer Mehla, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from aforesaid station to the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Chowari, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy. 2. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 50 years old and she is Class-IV employee, this Court, while calling reply from 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the respondents, stayed the impugned transfer order vide order dated 16.01.2025, as a result of which, petitioner is still continuing to work at the present place of posting. 3. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed the reply, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than five years, if it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing the impugned transfer order. It is not in dispute that vide impugned transfer order, petitioner has been transferred within District from Mehla to Chowari. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner being lady and Class- IV employee could not have been transferred to far flung area, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, especially when no such distinction, if any, has been provided in the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 50 years old lady and distance between present place of posting and transferred station is more than 150 Km, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file 3 representation to the competent authority for cancellation of transfer order or her adjustment at a convenient station within a period of one week, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. 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 appropriate order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week is not decided by the competent authority, interim order dated 16.01.2025 passed by this Court shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 15,2025 (shankar)