IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9817 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gopal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Narvada Kashyap, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Kashana, Education Block Aut, Thalout, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to District Kullu on the ground that he has already completed more than five years of service in District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that petitioner has been working in District Mandi for more than five years and as such, he is entitled to make representation, seeking therein inter district transfer under 5% quota. 3. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Careful perusal of Notification dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) provides for inter district transfer of an employee after his/her having completed five years in one District. If it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in 3 terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Notification dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-1). Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Sunil)