Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2590 (HP)

SUNITA DEVI v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1894/2026 · 2026-02-18

Romesh Verma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 18 94 of 2026 Decided on : 1 8 .02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sunita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate (through V.C.). For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following main relief: (i) “That in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent department may kindly be directed to consider and allow the application of Petitioner for inter district transfer with relaxation of qualifying service if any, under 5% inter district transfer quota and issue transfer order of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner at any nearby vacant stations, preferably at GPS Barsar District Hamirpur (against vacancy), GPS Bhakreri District Hamirpur (against vacancy), GPS Baliah District Hamirpur (against vacancy) & GPS Gujrehra District Hamirpur (against vacancy).” 2. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the undated representation (Annexure P-3) made by father in law of the petitioner in a time-bound manner. 3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authority to decide the undated representation (Annexure P-3) made by father in law of the petitioner within a period of ten days from today, by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case, and the authority shall take a decision strictly in consonance with the provisions of law. 5. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending 3 application(s), if any. 1 8 th February, 2026 ( Romesh Verma ) (Shamsh Tabrez) Vacation Judge