Kaushalya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3515 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
__________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_

¶4

Petitioner herein, who is a JBT, has completed normal tenure of posting at GPS Thana Khegwa, Education Block Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, and as such, he has made representation to the respondents to transfer him to some other station near district headquarter Nahan on account of adverse family circumstances.

¶5

Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith reveals that petitioner herein has been working in school, as detailed hereinabove, which is situate in hard area, for the last two and a half years and before afore posting, he also remained posted in hard area w.e.f. 2007 to 2022, firstly in the capacity of

¶6

2

¶7

Primary Assistant Teacher and thereafter as JBT. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area and there is a provision in the Transfer Policy, enabling employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area after his/her completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, coupled with the fact that son of the petitioner is 75% disabled and he has filed representation to the competent authority, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶8

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. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶9

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing

¶10

3

¶11

the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶12

March 13, 2025 (sunil)

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Kaushalya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Devi 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

Gagan Kanthwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Mukul Jishtu Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Charanjeet Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Amit Sharma Vs the Hpptcl