2025:HHC:8016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4515 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as TGT (NM) at Government Middle School, Dushad u/c GSSS, Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. which is a remote area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation for transfer from hard area to the soft area expeditiously . 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8016 Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that pending representation, if not already decided shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner reveals that petitioner was appointed as TGT, Non-Medical at GMS, Dushad under complex GSSS, Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. in the year 2019 and since then he is working there. After completion of normal tenure at the present place, the petitioner filed representation to the competent authority, specifically stating therein that his son is 75% disabled and as such required to be treated in a station where adequate medical facilities are available. Since no decision ever came to be taken on the representation of the petitioner, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3 2025:HHC:8016 Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27, 2025 (Rupsi)