IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8102 of 2025 Decided on: 16th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Piar Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is waived by Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General. In view of the nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither reply is required to be called from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non- Medical) at GHS Jumhar, under complex GSSS Luddu, District Chamba ever since the year 2014. The aforesaid place is a sub-cadre hard area. Petitioner had represented umpteenth number of times to the respondents/competent authority, seeking his transfer to an area of his preference, however, his representations were not heeded to. Instead of transferring the petitioner to the area preferred by him, respondents have issued office order on 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), transferring the petitioner to GMS Rajindu, under complex GMSSS Saho, District Chamba vice respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has since joined at the place of the petitioner. The petitioner has not joined at the transferred place as on completion of more than requisite tenure in the sub-cadre hard area, he desires his posting at a place of his preference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the competent authority within two days, whereafter, the said authority is directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.4 under the impugned office order, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation for his transfer/adjustment to the competent authority/Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh, within two days from today. In case such a representation is so preferred within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of one week thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such decision, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail leave of the kind due. It is made clear that in case no such representation is made within the aforesaid period, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically vacated. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh