IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7375 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Reena Kumari ……...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. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Samra, Block Mehla, Tehsil Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 17.3.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby she has sought transfer from the aforesaid station to one of the stations of her choice as detailed in the representation on account of the fact that she has completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area i.e. two winters and three summers. 2. 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. - 2 - Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Panwar, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner has been working as TGT (Arts) at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the government from time to time, enables an employee working in hard area to seek transfer to soft area after completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioner. 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 his representation (Annexure P-3), 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 a speaking order taking note of the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer after having completed normal tenure at present place of posting. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge