IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8739 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Rajeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, 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 Lecturer (English) in Government Senior Secondary School, Kharkari, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that his son is 75% disabled and there is no one to take care of him, in time bound manner. 2. 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. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma states that mere completion of tenure at present place of posting 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 cannot be a ground for petitioner to seek transfer, however, he fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit clearly reveals that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station and his minor son is disabled to the extent of 70%, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, 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 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, on account of adverse family circumstances. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)