IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6211 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Monika …….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. Mukul Sood, 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 TGT(Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Railla, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is hard area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein directions to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has made prayer to transfer her from present place of posting to one of the station of her choice on account of the fact that she has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in terms of transfer policy. 3. Careful perusal of the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that petitioner herein was offered appointment as TGT (Medical) on 23.12.2021 at Government High School, Railla, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. On 26.02.2022, though services of the petitioner were regularized, but fact remains that till date, she has been working in the afore school. Though, petitioner had completed her normal tenure of posting in the year 2023, but till date, she has been not transferred despite there being representation and as such, is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. Since transfer policy provides for transfer of an employee, who served in hard area for minimum three years, 3 this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. 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 representation (Annexure P-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 speaking order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 11, 2025 (shankar)