_______________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 914 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 18 February, 2026

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA




                                                                            .
                                     CWP No. 1894 of 2026





                                     Decided on : 18.02.2026
    _______________________________________________________
    Sunita Devi                                  ...Petitioner





                                              Versus
    State of H.P. & Ors.                       ...Respondents




                                               of
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge.
                     rt
    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

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

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

of satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide

the undated representation (Annexure P-3) made by father rt 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

application(s), if any.

18th February, 2026 ( Romesh Verma )

.

(Shamsh Tabrez) Vacation Judge

of rt