IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9164 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.06.2025 Prakash Chand Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice is confined to respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither the reply is required to be filed by respondents No.1 to 3 nor notice of this petition is required to be issued to respondent No.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s grievance pertains to office order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he, serving as a Shastri at GSSS Harinagar under GSSS Boileauganj, District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Shimla, has been transferred to GHS Bamut under GSSS Pahal. 3. The transfer has been assailed on the ground that it was issued on the basis of DO Note No. 174928 dated 27.03.2025, pursuant to the recommendation of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, at the instance of respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is left with about 1½ years to superannuate. The petitioner will retire on 31.01.2027. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed more than his normal tenure at his present place of posting, where he was transferred in July 2021. It is also submitted that the impugned transfer order has already been implemented qua the petitioner and respondent No. 4, as both have joined at their respective transferred stations. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), questioning the impugned transfer order. The petitioner was given to understand by the respondent-Department that he should first join at the transferred station, and only thereafter his representation would be considered. Though the petitioner has since joined -3- at the transferred station, the said representation has not yet been decided by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a time-bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. The decision be taken within two weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner and respondent No.4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 2nd June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)