Allowed

Pritika v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CWP/16081/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Staff Nurse, sought a transfer after completing her tenure at a remote station. Her representation was not decided due to non-availability of vacancies. The court disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority to consider and decide her representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's representation for transfer within four weeks in accordance with law and transfer policy.

Pritika Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 16081/2026 Decided on: 16^th September, 2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pritika …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and another

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocates.

¶11

For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Petitioner is working as Staff Nurse at the Community Health Centre, Shansha, District Lahaul & Spiti. Her case is that, on completion of the requisite tenure at the aforesaid station, she preferred a representation before the respondents/competent authorioty seeking her transfer to a place of her preference. The said representation was not acceded to on the ground as indicated in office letter dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-5), that post was not lying vacant at the station opted by the petitioner. The petitioner again made a representation on 19.06.2026 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No. 2, seeking her transfer to a place of her preference, anticipating the availability of

¶14

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶15

¶16

a vacancy at the places preferred by her. Petitioner's grievance is that the said representation has not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, the said respondent/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶17

Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioner, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy, within a period of four weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶19

16^th September, 2026 rohit

Pritika v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritika v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases