IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7051 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Deeksha ……...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. Ashok Kumar, 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 TGT (Non- Medical) at Government Middle School Lohani u/c GMSSS Salooni Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground that her husband is serving in Army. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that representation having been filed by the petitioner for transfer to a station of her choice, deserves to be considered in terms of clause 5.2. of the transfer policy - 2 - formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which provides that an employee, who is wife of an Army Personnel can seek transfer to a place of her choice. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Panwar, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner 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/competent authority to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three 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 clause 5.2 of the transfer policy. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge