Pooja Kumari vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

Except that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of individual hardship, no legal ground for interference in the impugned transfer order is made out.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she has two school going minor daughters and the husband of the petitioner is engaged in a private job at far distance. In such circumstances, to serve away from her home, it will cause grave hardship to the entire family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority with a direction to said authority to decide the same in a time bound manner.

Prayer being innocuous is not opposed. Petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to respondent No.2 within three days from today. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same within one week thereafter by reasoned and detailed order, more particularly, keeping in view the vacancy position as explained in para-g of the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents. Till the final decision is taken on representation of the petitioner, interim order dated 25.09.2023 shall continue to operate. It is clarified that in case the petitioner does not submit her representation within three days, this order shall automatically seized to operate.

Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.