2026:HHC:31751 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11697 of 2026 Decided on: 31.07.2026 Reenu Pathania … 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 Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned Office Order dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-2) issued by Respondent No.2, and the consequential relieving Office Order dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-4) issued by Respondent No.,4 in the interest of justice; ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at GSSS Piploo, District Una, H.P. till the completion of her normal tenure as per the Transfer Policy in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. When this case was listed on 15.07.2026, the following order was passed:- “CWP No. 11697 of 2026 Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. No. 1 to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31751 4. Issue separate notice to the private respondent, on taking steps within one week, returnable for 31.08.2026. List on 31.08.2026. Reply by represented respondents, as prayed for, in the meanwhile. CMP No. 17271 of 2026 Notice and reply in above terms. Till further orders, the operation of transfer order 08.07.2026 (Annexure P2) is hereby stayed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve at GSSS, Piploo, District Una and the private respondent shall be directed to perform her duties at the station where she was serving before her being posted at Piploo. This order shall be complied with by the authorities, de hors the petitioner stands relieved or not. This order has been passed by the court as learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was posted at Piploo only on 01.09.2025 and before that the petitioner is stated to be serving at Jaure Amb almost for a period of three years, except a week's stay at Loharli. Learned Counsel has also informed the Court that the distance between Jaure Amb and Piploo is of about 70 kms.” 3. Thereafter, the case was listed on 29.07.2026, on a mention made on behalf of the private respondent. On the said date, the following order was passed:- “This case has been listed on mention made by learned counsel for the private respondent. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has informed the Court that the interim order has been obtained by the petitioner by misrepresenting the facts before the Court and thus by misleading the Court. Learned Senior Counsel on instructions submits that it 3 2026:HHC:31751 was informed to the Court that distance the distance between Jaure Amb and Piploo is of about 70 Kms, whereas it is less than 35 kilometers. At this stage, Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the original counsel representing the petitioner is not available today. On the request of learned vice counsel for the petitioner, list on 31st July, 2026.” 4. Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that on account of miscommunication, wrong distance was intimated to the Court. 5. Be that as it may, as it could not be disputed that the petitioner had been serving since the year 2022 within a radius of about 25 kilometers, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned transfer order. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that being a mid-academic session, the issue is that the petitioner has two children who are undergoing their education in Classes 6th and 11th and their studies may be affected on account of the transfer. 7. All that this Court can observe in light of the said submission made by the petitioner is that the petitioner may represent to the Authority for her readjustment at some other station and if any such representation is filed within a week from today, appropriate call be taken thereupon within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Interim order dated 15.07.2026 is vacated. However, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join the 4 2026:HHC:31751 station to which she stands transferred till a decision is taken on the representation to be so filed by the petitioner. However, it is clarified that if no representation is filed by the petitioner within a week's time, then the protection granted to the petitioner by this Court shall cease to operate. 8. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2026 (Rishi)