IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7915 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Om Parkash ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Dulta & Mr. Vishal Verma, 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 at present is working as Veterinary Pharmacist in Veterinary Dispensary Kumar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 2. It has been averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner, who was initially appointed on contractual basis in the year 2006, was regularized in the year 2013 and he has been working in afore capacity at place called Kumar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, since 31.10.2022, which has been notified as hard area. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in afore hard area, he has filed representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his transfer to one of the stations of his choice in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, but since no action has been taken upon the representation, 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 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, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Since Transfer Policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to one of the stations of his choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court finds no impediment in 2 issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner in a 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 present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of provision contained in Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3