Allowed¶24

Asha Kumari v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Oct 2025CWP/12682/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of Staff Nurse before completion of three-year normal tenure under transfer policy; transfer without TTA/JT; respondents' own posting table showed distant-station postings (Chamba, Lahaul & Spiti, Kullu, Manali); respondents failed to justify transfer; writ petition allowed and transfer order dated 30.07.2025 quashed. Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Judge: Jyotsna Rewal Dua; Case: CWP No.12682 of 2025; Decided: 08-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned office order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) quashed and set aside. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned office order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) quashed and set aside.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, posted at Regional Hospital Kullu only on 14.03.2024, could be transferred before completing her normal tenure of three years prescribed under the transfer policy. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The respondents' stand on facts is not borne out from the pleadings.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The respondents' own tabulation of postings shows that the petitioner has remained posted at distant stations.

¶21

Key takeaways

Having themselves transferred the petitioner to different stations on their own, the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of the fact that she rendered services in District Chamba, Lahaul & Spiti and adjoining District Kullu.ratio¶23
The petitioner is justified in her grievance that she has been transferred from her present place of posting without being allowed to complete the normal tenure of three years prescribed under the transfer policy.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No.12682 of 2025, decided 08.10.2025, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) allowed a writ petition by a Staff Nurse serving in the respondent-Health Department, challenging her transfer by office order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) from Regional Hospital, Kullu to Community Health Centre Dulehar, District Una against vacancy, without TTA/JT. The respondents' own tabulation of postings showed service at distant stations (Regional Hospital Chamba, CHC Udaipur in Lahaul & Spiti, Regional Hospital Kullu, Civil Hospital Manali), and the Court held that having themselves transferred the petitioner between stations, the respondents could not take advantage of her service in those areas. As the respondents themselves had brought her back to Regional Hospital Kullu on 14.03.2024 and she was transferred before completing the normal tenure of three years prescribed under the transfer policy, the respondents failed to justify the impugned transfer order; it was quashed and set aside. Operation of the transfer order had earlier been stayed by interim order dated 05.08.2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.12682 of 2025 Decided on: 8^th October, 2025

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asha Kumari …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and another .....Respondents

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Petitioner is serving as Staff Nurse in the respondent-Health Department. Under office order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), she was transferred from Regional Hospital, Kullu to Community Health Centre (CHC) Dulehar, District Una against vacancy without Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA)/Joining Time (JT). Petitioner assails the transfer order by way of this writ petition on the ground that she was posted at Regional Hospital Kullu only on 14.03.2024 and has not completed her normal tenure at the present place. It was also urged

¶12

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶13

¶14

for the petitioner that she had not made any request for her transfer as is implied by the impugned office order, which has transferred her without TTA/JT.

¶15

Considering the above grounds, vide interim order dated 05.08.2025 passed in this writ petition, operation of the impugned office order dated 30.07.2025 was stayed.

¶16

2. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Learned Assistant Advocate General on the strength of reply submits that with effect from June, 2011, the petitioner had either remained posted at her home place or at the stations of her choice and convenience in District Kullu. Hence, the plea raised by her of having been transferred within a short span is not tenable. It was also submitted that petitioner was transferred from Regional Hospital Kullu to CHC Dulehar, District Una against vacancy on the approval of the competent authority as per the proposal dealt with in the departmental file.

¶17

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶18

4. Respondents’ stand on facts is not borne out from the pleadings. The respondents have themselves tabulated petitioner’s postings as under:-

¶19

¶20

“Sr. No.	Place of Posting	Period Posting	of	Approximate distance between places of postings
1	Regional Hospital Chamba, District Chamba	6.8.2009 2.6.11	to
2	Community Health Centre Udaipur, District Lahaul & Spiti	6.6.2011 7.10.2015	to	Chamba to Udaipur- 475 kilometers
3	Regional Hospital Kullu, District Kullu	8.10.2015 20.3.2021	to	Udaipur to Kullu-150 kilometers
4	Civil Hospital Manali, District Kullu	22.3.2021 14.3.2024	to	Kullu to Manali-40 kilometers
5	Regional Hospital Kullu, District Kullu	15.3.2024 till date	to	Manali to Kullu-40 kilometers”

¶21

The above table clearly makes out that the petitioner has remained posted at distant stations. She served at Regional Hospital Chamba w.e.f. 06.08.2009 to 02.06.2011 and at Community Health Centre Udaipur, District Lahaul & Spiti w.e.f. 06.06.2011 to 07.10.2015. The two stations have been stated to be at a distance of 475 kilometers. She thereafter served at Regional Hospital Kullu till 20.03.2021, the distance between Udaipur & Kullu being 150 kilometers. Petitioner, next served at Civil Hospital Manali, District Kullu till 14.03.2024, distance between Kullu and Manali being 40 kilometers. The respondents themselves brought the petitioner back to Regional Hospital Kullu on 14.03.2024, where she is serving till date. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner’s posting at Regional Hospital Kullu was

¶22

¶23

pursuant to some D.O. Note. Once the respondents have themselves transferred the petitioner at different stations on their own, they cannot be now permitted to take advantage out of the fact that the petitioner has rendered services in District Chamba, Lahaul & Spiti and adjoining District Kullu. Interestingly, the respondents have also pleaded in the reply that “the respondents at the same time have also to comply with the various approvals of the competent authorities as received from time to time” .

¶24

5. In view of above, the petitioner is justified in her grievance that she has been transferred from her present place of posting without letting her complete the normal tenure of three years prescribed under the transfer policy. Respondents have not been able to justify the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned office order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

October 08, 2025 Mukesh

Asha Kumari v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha 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

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Saroj Kumari W/O Sh. Kirti Naresh, aged 44 years Vs M. Sudha Devi

Himland Executive Residences (Himland Housing P Ltd) Vs Dilip Kumar and Ors.

Mukand Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Doulat Ram Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Guru Dev Vs the State of Hp and Others