2025:HHC:8485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4659 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Usha Kiran ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K.Motta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Clerk in the office of Tehsildar Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation on the ground that she has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area i.e. two winters and three summers as well as adverse family circumstances. 2. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner has been working as Clerk in the office of Tehsildar Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, for the last more than six years, but yet she has not been transferred to one of the stations of her choice. Besides petitioner’s having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, she also raised ground of couple case as well as her medical condition. As per petitioner, her husband is working as a Medical Officer at Medical College, Mandi, and there is none to look after her two years old child. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, 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 respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of 2 being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of provision contained in Transfer Policy, which provides for transfer of an employee from hard area to soft area within a period of three years as well as on the ground of couple case and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3