Dismissed

Harsha Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16318/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A staff nurse at IGMC Shimla sought transfer to Mandi district on couple-case grounds after completing three years. The High Court earlier directed authorities to consider her representation. The authorities transferred her to Civil Hospital Bagsaid, Mandi, citing administrative constraints. The petitioner challenged this, arguing a vacancy existed at Zonal Hospital Mandi. The court held that a couple-case concession does not confer a vested right to a specific posting and dismissed the petition, while permitting a fresh representation for the Zonal Hospital vacancy to be decided within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to file fresh representation regarding vacancy at Zonal Hospital Mandi within one week, to be decided within two weeks.

Harsha Kumari 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.16318 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harsha Kumari …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate (through VC) and Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4

¶11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Petitioner was serving as Staff Nurse w.e.f. January, 2022 at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (IGMC). She preferred a representation on 12.08.2025 seeking transfer to either at Zonal Hospital, Mandi or Shri L.B.S.M.C. Ner Chowk or Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. The representation was preferred primarily on the ground that petitioner had completed her tenure of three years at IGMC,

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Shimla; Petitioner's husband was posted in Agriculture Department in District Mandi. It appears that petitioner did not receive any response to her representation. This led her to institute CWP No. 15855 of 2025. Petition was disposed of on 08.10.2025 with directions to the

¶16

respondents to decide the representation:-

¶17

“3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, besides providing normal tenure of three years at one station, also provides for transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, 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 three 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 taking note of observations made herein above as well as Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶18

2. Pursuant to above, respondents issued office

¶19

order on 21.11.2025, observing therein that on account of acute shortage of Staff Nurses in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, petitioner's transfer from the aforesaid

¶20

¶21

place was not feasible at that time. A breather was given to the petitioner to prefer fresh representation to the Department, which request would be considered sympathetically at the relevant time subject to administrative convenience. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2025, petitioner instituted CWP18620/ 2025. On 10.7.2025, following order was passed in CWP No. 18620/

¶22

2025:-

¶23

“Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 09.07.2026, received from Director (Health Services), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof demonstrates that the petitioner has opted for the Cadre of Director (Health Services) and as such she is required to be relieved from the Cadre of Director (Medical Education) to the Cadre of the Director (Health Services).

¶24

Learned Additional Advocate General submit that in light of this fact, the petitioner otherwise cannot seek her transfer to a Medical Institution.

¶25

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions.

¶26

As prayed for, list on 14.07.2026.”

¶27

The writ petition was disposed of on

¶28

14.07.2026 as under

¶29

“5. In the backdrop of the request made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with the direction that Director (Medical

¶30

¶31

Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Director (Health Services), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that in terms of the option exercised by the petitioner, she be relieved from the Cadre of Medical Education and made part of the Cadre of the Health Services. Thereafter, her request for her posting at a place in vicinity where her husband is posted, be considered by the Authority. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today.”

¶32

Petitioner had opted for cadre of Health Services

¶33

after completing the codal formalities in that regard. Her request for posting at a place in the vicinity where her husband was posted, was to be considered by the authority within the timelines indicated in the aforesaid order.

¶34

In view of the directions issued in CWP No. 18620/2025, respondents passed office order on 15.09.2025, wherein petitioner, who had been serving at IGMC Shimla, was transferred to Civil Hospital, Bagsaid, Mandi, District Mandi. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid office order.

¶35

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

post of Staff Nurse was lying vacant at Zonal Hospital, Mandi, however, instead of adjusting the petitioner at the

¶38

¶39

aforesaid vacancy, respondents have adjusted one another Staff Nurse at the aforesaid place. This defeats petitioner’s right as she is seeking concession in posting on account of her’s being a couple case in the employment of the State Government; That petitioner's husband is serving as Agriculture Extension Officer in the State Agriculture Department at Sundernagar. He is a Class-I officer. Therefore, petitioner should have been adjusted either at Zonal Hospital Mandi or Civil Hospital Sundernagar.

¶40

4. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that petitioner's husband has already completed two years of tenure at his current place of posting i.e. Sundernagar, and would be due for transfer after one year in normal course.

¶41

Under the impugned office order, petitioner has

¶42

been transferred from IGMC Shimla and adjusted at Civil Hospital Bagsaid in District Mandi. The transferred place may be at a distance of around 60 K.Ms, as put forth by the petitioner, nonetheless, the respondents have endeavoured to post the petitioner closer to her husband's place of posting. Even though concession to couples in employment of State Government is admissible for their convenient posting, but that is only as far as possible. Petitioner does

¶43

¶44

not enjoy a vested right to seek a particular place of posting

¶45

or to be posted right at the place of posting of her husband, who incidentally will be due for transfer in another year or that she had a prior right to be adjusted at Zonal Hospital Mandi and none else could have been posted there. It is for the employer to see the comparative hardships faced by its employees and to exercise its discretion in accordance with law, keeping in view all attending factors. Consequently, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that a vacancy of Staff Nurse is available at Zonal Hospital (Medical Superintendent) Mandi. If that is so, it is for the petitioner to make a representation in that regard to respondent No. 2/competent authority. In case such a representation is so made within one week, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that petitioner’s is a couple case and she has been requesting for posting in the vicinity of posting of her husband for last about more than a year. The decision be taken within two weeks thereafter and be communicated to her.

¶47

¶48

With the above observations, petition stands

¶49

disposed.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶51

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2026 Judge R.Atal

Harsha Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsha Kumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases