IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9477 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as TGT (Non-Medical) in Government Middle School, Sullo, under complex Government Senior Secondary School, Aura, District Chmba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the station of his choice in District Kangra, on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area. 2. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, reveals that petitioner has been working in present place of posting, which is a tribal area, for more than three years and as such, in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he is required to be transferred to soft area or one of the station of his choice. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today. 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 thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as taken note hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)