IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8583 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhupender Singh ……...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. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. 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 TGT (Arts) at GSSS Badgran, Education Block Bharmour, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1) in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice as detailed in the representation on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers. - 2 - 2. It is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner is posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Badgran, Education Block Bharmour, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh since his initial appointment on contract basis on 31.3.2022. Now petitioner stands regularized vide office order dated 12.7.2024. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, attempted to argue that services rendered on contract basis cannot be taken into consideration while computing period of posting at one station, rather period, if any, spent by the petitioner in hard area after regularization can only be taken into consideration for calculating minimum tenure of posting, however this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of learned Deputy Advocate General. Bare perusal of transfer policy nowhere suggests distinction, if any, between the employee working on contract or on regular basis. Once it is apparent that petitioner has been working in hard/tribal area for more than three years, he is very much entitled to seek transfer to a soft area or one of the stations of his choice. 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 respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, - 3 - 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 clauses 12, 15 and 16.1 of the transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge