IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9105 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamal Jeet ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 D.P.E. at Government Senior Secondary School Adhwani, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for transfer from aforesaid station to a station as detailed in the representation. 2. It is averred in the petition that old age parents of the petitioner are suffering from heart disease and there is none to take - 2 - care of them, as such, he is required to be transferred to a station of his choice, enabling him to take care of his old age parents, who are at the fag end of their life. 3. Though averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, clearly reveal that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but he has filed representation to the competent authority for his transfer from afore station to one of the station of his choice on account of adverse family circumstances. Before approaching this court petitioner has filed representation, but since no heed was paid, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 2. 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 though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at the present place of posting, but representation, if any filed by him on account of adverse family circumstances, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the 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 liberty to the respondents/competent authority to decide the representation - 3 - 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 on account of adverse family circumstances. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge