Disposed¶11

Anita Kumari v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jul 2025CWP/11561/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teacher transfer — hard area to soft area; petitioner (Shastri, GMS Kurthala u/c GSS Kiri, District Chamba) completed normal tenure of two winters and three summers; writ petition disposed of with direction to decide transfer representation (Annexure P-1) within three weeks, with hearing, per HP Government Transfer Policy. CWP No.11561 of 2025, decided 18.07.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J., Anita Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, after affording her an opportunity of being heard and taking note of the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. ¶11

Anita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to have completed her normal tenure (two winters and three summers) at her hard-area posting, is entitled to have her pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer to a soft area considered under the Transfer Policy.

¶10

Court's answer

The Court found that the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure at her present place of posting, i.e., two winters and three summers, and therefore her prayer for transfer deserves to be considered under the Transfer Policy, which enables an employee serving in a hard area to seek transfer to a soft area after completion of normal tenure.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders taking note of the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.11561 of 2025, decided 18.07.2025: Anita Kumari, working as Shastri at GMS Kurthala u/c GSS Kiri, District Chamba, sought a direction to the respondents to decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) praying for transfer from her hard-area station to a soft-area station. Rejecting the State's stand that she had not completed normal tenure, the Court found she had already completed the normal tenure of two winters and three summers, and held that her prayer deserved consideration under the Transfer Policy enabling hard-area employees to seek soft-area transfer. The petition was disposed of with a direction to consider and decide the representation preferably within three weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and taking note of the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.11561 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 18.07.2025

¶4

_______________________________________________________ Anita Kumari

¶5

…….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri at GMS Kurthala, u/c GSS Kiri, District Chamba, 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-1) , whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation.

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, her prayer for transfer from hard area to soft area cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting i.e. two winters and three summers. If it is so, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for transfer deserves to be considered in light of provisions contained in the Transfer Policy, which enables an employee, who is serving in hard area, to seek transfer to soft area after completion of normal tenure i.e. two winters and three summers, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition.

¶11

4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three weeks today. Needless to say, authority

¶12

¶13

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 Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand

¶14

disposed of.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶16

July 18, 2025 (Sunil)

Anita Kumari v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Kumari v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ram Kali Vs the State of Hp and Others

Inder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shashi Rattan Vs State of Hp and Others

Manmohini Sharma and Another Vs M.Sudha Devi