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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) for transfer expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and by passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy and the posting of the petitioner's husband in the Education Department at District Kangra; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) seeking transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, within a time bound manner.

Court's answer

Although transfer/posting of an employee is the sole prerogative of the employer, the transfer policy formulated by the State of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case as well as adverse family circumstances.

Ratio / Principle

The Court saw no impediment in issuing a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy.ratio¶¶12
In deciding the representation, the authority shall also take note of the fact that the petitioner's husband is also working in the Education Department and is presently posted in District Kangra.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.17173 of 2025, decided 6.11.2025) — Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.) — Petitioner, a Junior Basic Teacher at Government Primary School Tatri, Education Block Mehla-I, District Chamba, sought a direction to decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3) for transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, her husband being posted as Drawing Master in District Kangra and there being none to care for her minor child. Held: while transfer/posting is the sole prerogative of the employer, the State's transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case as well as adverse family circumstances; accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy and of the fact that the petitioner's husband also works in the Education Department and is posted in District Kangra. Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.17173 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.11.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Manisha Singh

……...Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A.Safee, Mr.Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Basic Teacher in Government Primary School Tatri, Education Block Mehla-I, 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-3) in a time bound manner, whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of choice on the ground of adverse family circumstances. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is having one minor child and her husband is posted as Drawing Master in District Kangra, as a result thereof, there is none to take care of her minor child.

2 -

2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that no doubt, petitioner has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but it is the sole prerogative of an employer to transfer/post an employee to a particular station.

3. True, it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee anywhere in the State, but fact remains that transfer policy formulated by State of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case as well as adverse family circumstances, as such, this Court sees no impediment in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of transfer policy as well as taking note of the fact that husband of the petitioner is also working in the Education Department, who at present is posted in District Kangra. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(manjit)