IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8089 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Tharu Changra EB Chantra-I, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to District Kangra under 5% inter- district transfer quota, in time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner has already completed five years in District Mandi and as such, in terms of notification dated 20.11.2021, wherein 5% quota has been fixed for inter-district transfer, he is entitled to be transferred to District - 2 - Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Since despite there being representation, needful has not been done by the respondents, 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, fairly states that though he has reason to presume and believe that by now representation, as detailed herein above, must have been decided, but if not, same shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation dated 10.11.2024 for redressal of his grievances, 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-1) having been filed by the petitioner for transfer under 5% inter-district quota in terms of notification dated 20.11.2021 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 notification dated 20.11.2021 as detailed herein above. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in - 3 - appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge