IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3171 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Monika Gautam …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, 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 is working as Female Health Worker at Health Wellness Centre, Tihari, Block Katola, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation 31.01.2025(Annexure P-4), praying therein for her transfer from the present place of posting to the station near to her native place. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that representation, if any, pending adjudication shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and she on account of adverse circumstances in the family has approached department concerned by way of representation for her transfer from present place of posting to the station near her native place. 4. Though, having taken note of the fact that it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at particular station, but once provision has been made in the transfer policy to transfer an employee on account of adverse family circumstances, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 31.01.2025(Annexure P-4), of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an 3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 06, 2025 (shankar)