IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5978 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Smt. Pratima Gupta ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ………Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Per Surjit Singh, J. Petitioner had been working in Government Primary School, Fagla (SNR-I). She requested the authorities for her transfer to Government Primary School, Purana Bazar, Sundernagar on compassionate grounds. She stated that her minor son had been suffering from mental retardation to the extent of 70% and her husband was also dead. She pleaded that there was no one to look after her mentally retarded son. Her request was acceded to and she was transferred to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Government Primary School, Purana Bazar ( SNR-I) vide order dated 28th August, 2010, copy Annexure P-1. Three days later, impugned order, Annexure P-2 was passed, by which respondent No. 4 was transferred from GPS Chhalkhi (Balh) to GPS Purana Bazar (SNR-I), on her own request. This order was passed in supersession of order, Annexure P-1. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have not filed any reply. Respondent No. 4, in her reply, has stated that she has been accommodated at GPS, Purana Bazar, Sundernagar on her request because her father-in-law, aged about 85 years, met with an accident and is bedridden and there is nobody to look after him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, in response to a court query why the father-in-law of respondent No. 4 cannot be attended upon by the husband of respondent No. 4, submits that her husband is also in service. If both the respondent No. 4 and her husband are in service, they can very easily employ a nurse to look after the ailing father-in-law of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Chhalkhi (Balh), the place which is easily approachable by bus and the traveling time by bus could not be more than 15 to 20 minutes. In the case of petitioner, 3 her difficulty is severer than that of respondent No. 4. Her husband is dead and her son is mentally retarded, with no one to look after. 6. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31st August, 2010, Annexure P-2 is set-aside. In case, respondent No. 4 makes a representation within 15 days, respondents No. 1 and 2 will consider accommodating her at Sundernagar or some nearby place, if a post is lying vacant. 7. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. ( Surjit Singh ), J. November 18, 2010, (vs)