IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7039 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mohinder Chandel ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Medical Officer (Dental) at Regional hospital Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 21.2.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid station to Civil Hospital Banjar, District Kullu. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Somesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner could not be transferred from present place of posting to Civil Hospital, Banjar, on account of adverse family circumstances. Since daughter of the petitioner is suffering from Cerebral Palsy and she is 90% permanently disabled, it may not be possible for the petitioner to provide her - 2 - medical aid at transferred station, which is otherwise a remote area. Though pursuant to transfer order, petitioner has already joined the transferred station, but since representation having been filed him, praying therein for cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a suitable place is not being decided by the competent authority, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 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 reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Kahol, 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 respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-9) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two 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 a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer or cancellation of transfer on account of adverse family circumstances. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate - 3 - proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge