IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8717 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ……...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. Ravinder Singh and Mr. Vishav Vijay Singh, 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 Lecturer in Hindi at GSSS Badehar, District Hamirpur, 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-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to some other station on account of the fact that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting and his wife is also posted at Government Senior Secondary Sanahi District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, which is at a distance of 50kms from present place of posting. - 2 - 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, there is no requirement to file reply by the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. He states that mere completion of tenure at one place may not be sufficient ground to seek transfer because transfer policy though talks of minimum tenure of three years at one place, but same time, it does not make it mandatory for respondent-State to transfer an employee from station where he has completed normal tenure of posting, however he fairly states that representation, if not already decided shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and his wife is also teaching in a school, which is at distance of 50kms from present place of posting and as such, petitioner besides taking ground of completion of normal tenure, has also raised ground with regard to couple case. Since transfer policy on account of afore grounds enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. - 3 - 4. Consequently, in view of the above, 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) expeditiously, preferably, within four 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 on the ground of couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge