IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6735 of 2025 Decided on: April 25, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Lakshmi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GMSSS Bhariankothi, Chamba, District Chamba, which is a sub cadre area of District Chamba, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby petitioner has requested respondent No.2 for transferring 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 i.e. two winters and three summers and on account of adverse family circumstances. 2. Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notices on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, as such, same is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client shall be content and satisfied, in case respondent No.2, is directed to consider and decide her pending representation dated 15.2.2025 (Annexure P-2), in a time bound manner, in light of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles and keeping in view of her compelling family circumstances i.e. her seven month baby and the fact that she has to walk for 2 kms on foot to reach the School. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that the representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 2 6. It is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has been serving at aforesaid place, which is a sub cadre area, for more than three years and as such, she is entitled to be transferred from Sub Cadre area to a soft area or a station of choice/convenient station, in light of Clause 16.1 of Comprehensive Guiding Principles. Besides above, petitioner is having baby of seven/eight months and as such, finding it difÏcult to take care of her baby in sub cadre area, without help and aid of family members. Since Clause 16.1 of Comprehensive Guiding Principles, itself provides for transfer of an employee from tribal/hard/ sub cadre area to a soft area after completion of normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. 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 the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation dated 15.2.2025 (Annexure P-2), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order 3 shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of facts, as detailed hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Vikrant) 4