IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8523 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GCPS Daroli, Education Block Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from District Solan to District Una, under 5% inter-district quota, in time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition, that petitioner has already completed five years in District Solan and as such, in terms of notification dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he is entitled to be transferred to another District under 5% inter- district quota. Though at first instance, petitioner filed representation (Annexure P-3) to the competent authority, but since needful was not done, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions, as detailed hereinabove. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that there is a provision for inter-district transfer, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. 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 thereupon taking note of notification dated 20.11.2021, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer under 5% quota after his/her having completed five years of service in one District. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)