Disposed¶10

Neena Rani v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025CWP/17533/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical ground transfer; normal tenure not completed; Himachal Pradesh Transfer Policy; representation Annexure P-1; direction to decide within four weeks; opportunity of hearing; PGIMER Chandigarh treatment; TGT (Medical) GSSS Nihalgarh Sirmaur; CWP disposed without reply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer on medical grounds expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶10

Neena Rani Vs State of Hp and Ors. — 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 (Annexure P-1) for transfer on medical grounds notwithstanding that she has not completed the normal tenure of posting.

¶10

Court's answer

Non-completion of normal tenure of posting is not a bar where the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds; the Court declined to go into the merits of the case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

¶10

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer on medical grounds — High Court of H.P. (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), 12.11.2025, CWP No.17533 of 2025: Petitioner, TGT (Medical) at GSSS Nihalgarh, District Sirmaur, who had not completed normal tenure of posting, sought directions to decide her representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer on medical grounds for treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh. Noting that the Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds, the Court, without calling a reply or entering into merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; pending application(s) also disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.17533 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025

¶3

____________________________________________________________ Neena Rani …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

¶4

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Medical), at GSSS Nihalgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to 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 station, as detailed in the representation, on medical grounds.

¶6

Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that she has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, but on account of her ill-health, she is required to be transferred to one of the station, as detailed in Para No.4 of the petition, so that she gets regular treatment from PGIMER, Chandigarh.

¶7

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting and as such, she is not entitled to seek transfer, but prayer, if any, for transfer on medical grounds, shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶10

True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 orders.

¶11

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶13

November 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Neena Rani v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neena Rani v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Kewal Krishan Vs the State of Hp and Another

Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joginder Pal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others