IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4971 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harish Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Nisha Kumari, 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 Clerk in Government ITI, Nainidhar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 24.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from aforesaid station to some other station on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on 25.6.2018, petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contract basis in the respondent-Department and since then he is working at Government ITI Nainidhar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Though vide order dated 1.10.2021, services of the petitioners were regularized, but he is not transferred from aforesaid station, meaning thereby for more than five years, he has been serving at one station. Since transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one place of posting, petitioner by way representation approached respondents for his transfer to some other station, but since nothing was done, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 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 dated 24.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), 3 of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 04, 2025 (shankar)