IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9503 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sanjay 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. Vinay Sharma, 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 Superintendent Grade-II, Jal Shakti Division Killar, at Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to soft area or one of the station of his choice, on account of the fact that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 2. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, reveals that petitioner herein had worked in hard area on two occasions, firstly, he remained posted in hard area w.e.f. 21.04.2015 to 13.08.2017 and thereafter, w.e.f. 03.09.2023 uptil the date of passing of impugned transfer order. Since Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 provides that an employee, after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, is entitled to be be transferred to one of the station of his choice, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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-1) 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)