Allowed¶10

Radhika v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025CWP/16395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Radhika v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No.16395 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral), decided 16.10.2025. Keywords: transfer after completion of normal tenure in hard area; two winter and three summers; transfer policy of Government of Himachal Pradesh; direction to consider and decide pending representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) within three weeks; opportunity of being heard; TGT (Arts), Government High School Jaar, District Sirmour.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks, affording her an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶10

Radhika Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) seeking transfer from her hard-area posting to a station of her choice.

¶6

Court's answer

From the pleadings on record it is apparent that the petitioner has already completed the normal tenure of posting in the hard area.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Under the transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee working in a hard area is enabled to seek transfer to a soft area or one of the stations of her choice after completing the normal tenure of posting, i.e. two winters and three summers.

¶10

Key takeaways

Seeing no impediment, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks.ratio¶10
The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.16395 of 2025, decided 16.10.2025 — Transfer / hard-area tenure: A TGT (Arts) working in a hard-area school in District Sirmour, who had already completed her normal tenure of posting in the hard area, prayed that her pending representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) for transfer to a station of her choice be considered and decided. Noting that the transfer policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee working in a hard area to seek transfer to a soft area or a station of choice after completing the normal tenure of posting (two winters and three summers), the Court saw no need for a reply and directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. (Judgment paras 2–3)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16395 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 16.10.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Radhika …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Mr. Tek Ram, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT( Arts)

¶6

in Government High School, Jaar u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Bhatgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation as well as petition, on account of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

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 the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶10

Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee working in hard area to seek transfer to soft area or one of the stations of her choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winter and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), of the petitioner 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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

October 16,2025 (shankar)

Radhika v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika 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

Shiv Dutt Vs Hrtc and Others

Kalpana Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prashant Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reena Rai Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. (Unit Rauri) Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinay Kumar Vs the Hpsebl and Others