Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7711 of 2025
Date of Decision: 09.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Radha Kumari .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for State.
_______________________________________ _____________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts)
at Government Model Senior Secondary School, Tokali, District Una,
Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings seeking therein direction to respondents to consider and
decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3) in time bound
manner, whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place
of posting to Government Senior Secondary School Lambloo,
Government Senior Secondary School Didwin Tikkar, Government
Senior Secondary School Matani, Government Senior Secondary
School Amroh, Government Senior Secondary School Kuthera and
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Government Senior Secondary School Bhota, District Hamirpur,
Himachal Pradesh, on account of adverse family circumstances.
2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by
way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure
of posting at preset place of posting and as such, she is entitled to be
transferred from present place of posting to one of the stations, as
detailed hereinabove. Since mother of the petitioner, who is stated to
be 90 years old, is unwell and there is none to take care of her,
petitioner has filed representation to the competent authority, seeking
therein her adjustment at stations, named hereinabove, in terms of
transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek
transfer/adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances.
3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed
to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf
of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol,
learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that though
completion of normal tenure of posting at one station cannot be a
ground to seek transfer, rather, an employee is always bound to serve
the State, however, representation, if any filed by the petitioner, shall
be decided in accordance with law.
4. Consequently, in view of afore fair stand adopted by
learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the
merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with
the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending
representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, if not already decided,
expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. 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 thereupon taking
note of provisions contained in the transfer policy, as taken note
hereinabove.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 09, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
