2026:HHC:29944 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2908 of 2026 Decided on: 21.07.2026 Pushpa Devi … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) In compliance with last order, learned Additional Advocate General has produced on record, the incumbency of the candidates in Districts Bilaspur and Hamirpur. 2 By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed Office Order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), in terms whereof, the petitioner who is serving as Superintendent Grade-II in the Office Block Medical Office, Jhandutta and has been ordered to be transferred to Bagsaid in place of the private respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is serving at the present station since October, 2022, but she is a widow and has less than two years left to superannuate. He further submitted that as far as private respondent is concerned he was posted at Jhandutta since the year 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29944 2023 and was posted to Bagsaid only in the month of November, 2025 on promotion. Now, again he has managed his transfer in terms of impugned transfer order just after about three-four months. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had gained the appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband. She has one son and one daughter. Her son is working as a Senior Technical Consultant at New Delhi, whereas her daughter is undergoing the course of Radiography at AIMS, Delhi. He submitted that the petitioner in these circumstances is residing alone at Bilaspur and if the impugned order is not interfered with, she will have to go and serve at Bagsaid which is about 160 Kilometers away from her present place of posting as at this stage of her service career, it is not possible for the petitioner to go and serve at Bagsaid. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondent submitted that that the private respondent has served in tribal areas on more than one occasion and has also served in other adjoining areas. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that his transfer back to Jhandutta is bad. He further submitted that the private respondent is also to superannuate within two years. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand submitted that incumbencies of the petitioner as well as the private respondent are given in the reply and the State will abide by the 3 2026:HHC:29944 order that may be passed by the Court in this petition today. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. A perusal of the reply filed by the Department demonstrates that the petitioner herein was initially appointed in the year 1996 at CHC Markand, District, Bilaspur. She served there from the years 1996 to 2003. Thereafter, from 2003 to 2014, she was posted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur. From 24.11.2014 to 14.10.2022, she was posted in Dr.RPGMC, Tanda and since 15.10.2022, she has been serving at Jhandutta. 8. On the other hand, as far as private respondent is concerned, he was initially appointed in the year 1996 and posted in the office of CMO Office Kinnaur at Recong-Peo, where he served till 2001. Thereafter, he came to CHC Markand, District Bilaspur. where he served from 23.08.2001 to 05.09.2002. On 18.09.2002 he was posted to Tabo under BMO Kaza, District Lahaur and Spiti, where he remained till 10.03.2007. On 14.03.2007 he was transferred to PHC Berthin, District Bilaspur, where he served till 22.06.2012. Thereafter, he was served to PHC Talai, District Bilaspur, where he served from 23.06.2012 to 29.01.2018. From 30.01.2018 to 05.04.2018, he was posted in IGMC, Shimla. From 07.04.2018 to 13.04.2023, he was posted at Dr.RKGMC, Hamirpur. From 17.04.2023 to 15.12.2025, he was posted at BMO Jhandutta, 4 2026:HHC:29944 District Bilaspur, H.P. From 15.12.2025 to 05.03.2026, he was posted at BMO Bagsaid and from 06.03.2026 to 18.03.2026, he was posted at BMO Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. 9. The above demonstrates that as far as the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2014 to the year 2022, she served at Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Kangra at Tanda. Whereas, private respondent since the year 2007, has been serving either in District Bilaspur or in close vicinity to the said District, that is to say, except for 4 months when he was posted in IGMC, Shimla. Though he served in Hamirpur also from the year 2018 to the year 2023, but then Hamirpur and Bilaspur are not all that distance away. 10. In these circumstances, this Court has to balance the equity between the petitioner and the private respondent. This Court is of the considered that as the petitioner happens to be a destitute widow, who is nearing her superannuation and as it has not been disputed that her children are presently residing in Delhi and she is residing alone in Bilaspur, interest of justice demands that the petitioner be allowed to continue to serve at Jhandutta, so that she can superannuate from this place of posting. Ordered accordingly. 11. In light of the incumbence of the private respondent, it is not understood as to what administrative exigency was there in transferring the petitioner back from Bagsaid to Jhandutta just after 3 months of him being posted at Baksaid, where too he was posted on promotion. The above demonstrates that the transfer of the 5 2026:HHC:29944 private respondent from Baksaid to Jhandutta is not on account of any public interest, but was an exercise just to accommodate the private respondent. This is further evident from the transfer order, in terms whereof, the transfer of the private respondent is without any TTA and joining time. 12. Therefore, this petition is allowed by quashing Office Order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-1). 13. At this stage, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Counsel, submits that the private respondent also has an aged mother and his daughter is also suffering from certain medical issues. 14. Though, this Court has already quashed the impugned transfer order, but quashing thereof shall not come in the way of the private respondent to move an appropriate application for his adjustment at some other station and if any such application is filed by him, then without disturbing the petitioner, the respondent- Department shall be at liberty to adjust the private respondent. 15. As no order adverse to the interest of the proposed applicant has been passed in the petition, CMP No.18089 of 2026 is closed as not pressed. 16. The petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 21, 2026 (Rishi)