IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7221 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mamta Devi …….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. Ranjana Pathania, 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 is working as TGT (Non-Medical) at Government Middle School Kalaghat, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Narag, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), praying therein to transfer her to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting as well as couple case. 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 has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, she is entitled to be transferred to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that her husband is also working in District Bilaspur. 3. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents states that petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of posting, but careful perusal of the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by an affidavit, suggest that petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of posting and there is no specific denial to the fact that husband of the petitioner is also in government service and he at present is working in District Bilaspur. If it is so, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in terms of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 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 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), 3 of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks, taking note of transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case. 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 appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 02, 2025 (shankar)