IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9137 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Puneet Guleria ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary & Mr. Bonit Thakur, 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 No. 1 to 4-State. Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Rajta & Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates, for respondent No. 5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Caveat No. 332 of 2025 Discharged. CWP No.9137 of 2025 2. Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (NM) at GMS Janjeli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of office order dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GMS Nalsar, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Lohara, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that though petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but he has been transferred from afore station with a view to adjust private respondent namely Sanjeev Kumar, it appears that above named Sanjeev Kumar has approached this Court by way CWP No. 8251 of 2025 (Annexure P-4), laying therein challenge to order dated 16.05.2025, whereby his transfer order from GMS Nalsar, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Lohara, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to GMS Janjeli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, was cancelled. 3. Since during pendency of the present petition, afore cancellation order came to be withdrawn, this Court disposed of the petition, as a result thereof, petitioner was sent back to GMS Janjeli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied that in case his representation (Annexure P-6) filed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, is decided in a time bound manner. 4. 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, fairly states that though mere completion of tenure at one station does 2 not make an employee entitled for transfer, but yet representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 5. Since it is quite apparent from the averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached respondents, by way of representation, as detailed herein above, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. 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 taking note of facts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment as well as the object and intent of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3