Virendra Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 9325 of 2026

Date of Decision: 09.6.2026.

____________ ___________________________________________ Verindra Chauhan …….Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others … Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________

¶8

Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge ( oral ):

¶9

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.6.2026, as passed by the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the present petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from the office of Director, Health Safety and Regulation, Shimla H.P. to the office of Municipal Corporation, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2

¶12

The main contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of respondent No.3-Vijaya Kumari.

¶13

Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have complete instructions in the matter and he has apprised this Court that respondent No.3 has joined the transferred station.

¶14

Faced with this situation, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he shall be satisfied in case the petitioner is permitted to file a detailed/comprehensive representation to the authorities concerned within a period of three days from today for the redressal of her grievances.

¶15

Consequently, it is ordered that in the event of petitioner’s filing representation by giving the places of her choice, where the vacancies are existing, the respondents-State shall decide the representation positively within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard and the grievances as raised in the present petition shall be taken into consideration while deciding the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she shall disclose the stations which are lying vacant where the petitioner can be adjusted/accommodated in the representation.

¶16

3

¶17

In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of, so

¶18

also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶19

(Romesh Verma), Vacation Judge

¶20

9^th June, 2026 (Guleria)

Virendra Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Chauhan v. 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

Kritika Chandel and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

NHAI Vs Rakesh Kumar

NHAI Vs Yashpal and Ors.

Jagatjit Singh Kohli Vs Ayana Rana and Ors.

Nilesh Patel Vs State of Hp

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others