IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4925 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Poonam Kumari …….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. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer at Ayush Health and Wellness Centre Zaid, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from aforesaid station to some other station on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting as well as adverse family circumstances. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner herein joined the respondent-Department on 19.04.2018 as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer and since then she is posted at Ayush Health and Wellness Centre Zaid, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Though, petitioner has already completed more than seven years in the aforesaid station, but yet her prayer for transfer to some other station is not being considered. Since transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh specifically provides for tenure of three years at one station, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner. 3. 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 Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 04, 2025 (shankar)