IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7555 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….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. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, 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, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at Government Middle School, Lothal, u/c Government High School, Choori, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P- 1), whereby he has requested to transfer him from the present place of posting, which is a sub-cadre area, to one of the stations of his choice, in terms of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner being TGT (Arts) has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, which is a sub-cadre area, i.e. two winters and three summers, but yet his prayer for transfer to one of the stations of his choice is not being considered. Though before filing petition at hand, petitioner filed representation to the competent authority for his transfer, but since nothing was done, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Close scrutiny of pleadings adduced on record by petitioner clearly reveals that petitioner herein has been working at Government Middle School, Lothal, which admittedly is a sub-cadre area, since 21.02.2022, meaning thereby that he has already completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three 3 summers, if it is so, this Court sees no impediment to issue directions to respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner in time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)