IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8365 of 2025 Date of Decision:21.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pankaj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, 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 JBT in GCPS Deothi Majhgaon, Education Block Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), wherein he has prayed for his transfer from District Sirmour to District Mandi on account of his having completed more than five years service in District Sirmour under 5% District quota. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that representation, as detailed hereinabove, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since, it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner herein has already completed more than five years service in District Sirmour, coupled with the fact that Government of Himachal Pradesh by way of policy decision has enabled an employee to seek transfer to another District under 5% inter-District quota, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 4. 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, taking note of communication dated 27th September, 2021 (Annexure P-1). 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 appropriate order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate 3 proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 21,2025 (shankar)