Himani Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15849 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.10.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Himani Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents

¶4

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma & Mr. Pavan Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri at GMS Patyur, u/c GSSS Gumma, Education Block Drang-I, Distt. Mandi, 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-4) , whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as on medical grounds.

¶8

It has been fairly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that she has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but on account of her being in family way, prayer has been made to

¶9

2

¶10

transfer her from present place of posting to one of the stations, which is closer to her native place so that she may receive adequate care and attention from her husband and other family members during her pregnancy.

¶11

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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, she is not entitled to seek transfer, but having taken note of her medical condition as is evident from the averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶12

True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure

¶13

at present place of posting, but since Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from one station to another on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as on medical grounds, coupled with the fact that petitioner, who is pregnant, cannot be expected to stay alone at present place of posting, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction

¶14

3

¶15

to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within three 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 observations made herein above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶16

October 08, 2025 (sunil)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Himani Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himani Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Rajinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ramesh Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Deepti and Ors. Vs Ashish Kohli

Kusum Kumari Sood Vs Hpu

Kavita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Babli Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others