IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7521 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gagan Deep Sharma ……...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. Nikhil, Advocate vice Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Ranoh Education Block Dadasiba, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4.), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to other station under 5% inter-district transfer quota, in time bound manner. 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 the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, - 2 - fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Careful perusal of pleadings as well as material adduced on record clearly reveals that petitioner was initially appointed as JBT on 12.3.2019 on contract basis, but subsequently, he was regularized on 19.1.2022. Since initial appointment of the petitioner, he is posted at Education Block Dadasiba, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Since notification dated 20.11.2021, provides for 5% quota for transfer of an employee from one district to other after completion of five years in one district coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached the respondents by way of representation (Annexure P-4), this court sees no impediment in considering the prayer made in the petition. 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 the pending representation (Annexure P-4) having been filed by 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 a speaking order thereupon in terms of transfer policy as detailed herein above. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of - 3 - law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge