IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8499 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kirpa Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Sharma and Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol 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 Head Teacher at GPS Bhalar, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved on account of inaction on the part of the respondents upon representation filed by him, praying therein for transfer to one of the station of his choice as detailed in the representation. 2. It is averred in the petition that since petitioner is left with only 1 ½ years of service, he is required to be given choice of station in terms of transfer policy. Though, at the first instance, petitioner approached the respondents by way of representation dated 1.5.2025 - 2 - (Annexure P-2), but since needful has not been done till date, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation expeditiously in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, states that petitioner has been transferred from GPS Awantha, Sangrah to GPS Bhalar, Sangrah on promotion. He states that since petitioner herein has been promoted as Central Head Teacher at the transferred station coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be otherwise said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned order. However, Mr. Verma, fairly states that on account of the fact that petitioner is going to retire within 1½ years, he is required to be transferred to one of the station of choice in terms of the transfer policy. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) - 3 - expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. 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 taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground that he/she is likely to retire within two years. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge