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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-1) seeking transfer from her present station, she having completed the normal tenure of posting and being willing to serve in hard/tribal area.

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had already completed her normal tenure at her present place of posting and was ready and willing to work in hard/tribal area, the Court saw no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While acting on the representation, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders.

Key takeaways

In view of the nature of the prayer and the order proposed, the Court saw no necessity to call for a reply from the respondents, who were otherwise represented by the learned Additional Advocate General.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer – pending representation – direction to decide – Petitioner, a Medical Officer posted at Community Health Center, Jalog, Block Sunni, District Shimla, sought a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer from her present station, she having completed the normal tenure of posting and being willing to serve in hard/tribal area. The Court, noting that the respondents were represented by the learned Additional Advocate General who stated that the representation, if not already decided, would be decided expeditiously, saw no necessity to call for a reply. Holding that there was no impediment, the Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and to pass appropriate orders. Petition disposed of accordingly along with pending application(s), if any.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18897 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.12.2025

Dr. Nidhi Thakur

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Medical

Officer in Community Health Center, Jalog, Block Sunni, District Shimla, 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-1) , whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting.

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

2

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, fairly states that representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

It is one of those cases, where petitioner herself has volunteered to work in hard/tribal area and in that regard, she has already approached competent authority for passing appropriate orders. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she is ready and willing to work in hard/tribal area, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge

December 01, 2025

(sunil)