IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9807 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Shri Pawan 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 Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Pursuant to order dated 18.06.2025, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 30.06.2025, issued from the office of Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that impugned transfer of the petitioner from Central (Enforcement) GST Zone, Una (GST Wing) to South (TAU) GST Zone Parwanoo (GST Wing), against vacant post, has been made in larger public interest, due to shortage of ASTEO’s in GST Zone Parwanoo as compared to Center GST Zone Una. Though respondents have claimed that transfer of the petitioner has been done for better administration, effective management of manpower and to strengthen the overall number of ASTEO’s in the department, but yet department is in receipt of representation dated 28.05.2025 filed by the petitioner and the same is under consideration. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case representation, as detailed hereinabove, is ordered to be decided by the respondents in time bound manner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 28.05.2025, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Anand Prakash Solanki, (2003) 7 SCC 403, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 and B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 131. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)