IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9083 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjana Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & 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, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GHS Sapahan, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Bhalei, Education Block Sundla, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of couple case as well as completion of normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 2. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and her husband is also posted as JBT at GPS Jatehar, Education Block Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that mere completion of tenure in at one station does not make an employee entitled to seek transfer to one of the stations of her choice. He fairly states that representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid 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 present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 order taking note of 2 Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer on account of couple case. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3