IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7621 of 2025 Date of Decision:08.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Apeksha …….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. Ganesh Barowalia, proxy counsel vice Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School Bongli Khech, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 12.03.2025(Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that she has already completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that mere completion of tenure at one station may not be a reason for the respondents to transfer an employee from present place of posting to another station. He states that though in normal circumstances, an employee can work for a period of three years at one station, but in case, his/ her services are required at same station for more than three years on the ground of administrative exigencies or in public interest, Government shall retain such employee for more than three years. However, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh itself enables an employee to make representation to the competent authority for his/her transfer from one station to other on account of his/her having completed three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached the respondents by way of representation, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 4. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and 3 decide the representation dated 12.03.2025(Annexure P-2), of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 08,2025 (shankar)