IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4002 of 2025 Decided on: 22nd March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sheetal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr,. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is serving as Language teacher at GGHS Kiayo, District Shimla. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid area falls under most difficult area (Category ‘E’) under the applicable transfer policy of the State Government. Petitioner’s grievance is that she has preferred 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - representations to respondent No.2 on 13.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 [Annexure P-3(colly)], seeking her transfer to a soft area of her choice in accordance with the transfer policy, however, the same have not been decided as yet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since petitioner has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting, therefore, while considering her case for transfer to a soft area, decision rendered in Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another2, be kept in view, whereunder, it has been held that it is the responsibility of the respondent-State to find out substitute for the incumbent posted in hard area, but the follow up action cannot be withheld for want of a substitute. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be content in case she is permitted to file afresh representation to the respondents/ Competent Authority for her transfer to a soft area of her choice and thereafter, respondents/Competent Authority is directed to decide the same in a time bound schedule. 2 CWP No.2114 of 2018, decided alongwith connected matter on 23.10.2018 - 3 - 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file representation within two weeks. In case such a representation is received by the respondents/Competent Authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and the transfer policy within a period of six weeks keeping in view the aforesaid judgment in Sunil Kumr’s case. The decision so taken be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 22, 2025 R.Atal