IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6923 of 2025 Date of Decision:28.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Madhu Bala …….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. Ashwani K. Sharma, 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(Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School Baghal, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation dated 13.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to Government Senior Secondary School Paisa, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh where one vacancy is likely to be created on 30.04.2025 on account of superannuation of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 incumbent working there or against longer stay as detailed in para-5 of the writ petition. It is averred in the petition that petitioner herein has already completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, she may be transferred to school, as detailed hereinabove, on account of adverse family circumstances. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that mere completion of stay at one particular station does not entitle employee to seek transfer, rather it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at particular station as per requirement, however, he fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since, it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables employer to consider prayer made on behalf of an employee for transfer on adverse family circumstances, this Court without going into the merits 3 of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 13.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 28, 2025 (shankar)