IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8495 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Lakshay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 Forest Guard at Kaban Beat Sach Block, Sach Forest Range, Pangi Forest Division, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard/tribal area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), 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/tribal area. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting i.e. hard/tribal area, but yet representation made by him for his transfer to soft area has not been considered by the department in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which admittedly provides for transfer of an employee from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers. 2. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, fairly states that representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of 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-1) 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, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter 2 taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3