Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5327 (HP)

SAVITA v. THE STATE OF HP OTHERS

CWP/87/2026 · 2026-01-02

Sandeep Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.87 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Savita ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Kelu, Education Block Haroli, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation/petition, under 5% inter district quota. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. It is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner has completed three years at present place of posting, as such, she, being woman, is entitled to seek transfer from one district to another in terms of Notification dated 20.11.2021, after her having completed more than three years in one district. 4. Since petitioner has already approached competent authority by way of representation, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Notification dated 20.11.2021, which provides for inter-district transfer of a woman employee after her having completed three years in one district. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 02, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2