2025:HHC:13078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7587 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Parveen Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma & Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocates. 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 is physically handicapped and at present is working as JBT at Government Primary School Bal Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his posting in the same school against vacancy or in any school nearby Bal Mandi. 2. It is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that petitioner was appointed as JBT on contract basis under handicapped quota in the month of September, 2020. In the Month of October, 2022, petitioner was regularized as JBT, while he was on deputation at Government Primary School Bal Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Since two posts of JBT fall vacant in afore school, petitioner, by way of representation (Annexure P-3), requested respondents to post him on regular basis in the same school, but since needful was not done, petitioner was compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings, seeking relief as taken note hereinabove. 3. During proceedings of the case, Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly states that after filing of present petition, posts stated to be lying vacant at GPS Bal Mandi have been filled up and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to post him at any station nearby Bal Mandi. 4. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that bare perusal of averments contained in the petition itself suggests that the petitioner has been repeatedly adjusted on his demand. He further states that 2 since posts at Bal Mandi have been filled up, prayer otherwise made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. True it is that petitioner, who was appointed under handicapped quota, has been working on deputation at present place of posting and prior to filing of the present petition, two posts had fallen vacant in the same school, against which he could be regularized or posted, but since posts in afore school have been filled up, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation (Annexure P-3), 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) for his posting at convenient place 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 take note of fact that petitioner is a physically handicapped and it would be in the interest of justice of both the petitioner as well as his family, in case the petitioner is posted/transferred to a station near to the native place of the petitioner i.e. Bal Mandi. Needless 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 taking note of Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee having 3 disability to seek transfer to one of the stations of his/her choice/convenience. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at original place of his posting. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4