2025:HHC:11609 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6975 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Prem Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School Ram Nagar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representations (Annexures P-1, P-3 & P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to Government High School Kotla Kallar, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, where three posts of TGT (Arts) are stated to be lying vacant. 2. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner is not working in the hard area, but since he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that he has adverse family circumstances in the family, representation having been filed by him for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, deserves to be considered. 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 the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but such fact ipso facto does not entitle him for transfer to another station. He states that normal tenure of posting as provided in the Transfer Policy is three years, it does not mean that an employee cannot be allowed to continue at the same station beyond that period. 4. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, but once specific period of three years has been provided in Transfer Policy for employee to serve at one station, coupled with the fact that employee can seek transfer on account of adverse family 2 circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexures P-1, P-3 & P-4) in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexures P-1, 3 & 4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter taking note of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer on account of adverse family circumstances. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3