IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9867 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kali Dass …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, 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 Lab Attendant in GSSS Padhar, Tehsil Padhar, District 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-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of his nearing retirement. 2. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that present petition being pre-mature deserves outright rejection. He further states that representation, if any, for transfer to one of the stations of his/her choice, can be filed by the employee, when he/she is left with less than two years service before his retirement. 3. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has left with more than two years service at this juncture, there appears to be no justification to accept the request made by the petitioner, however, having taken note of fact that petitioner has already filed representation (Annexure P-1), coupled with the fact that one post of Lab Attendent in GSSS Chukku, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is likely to be vacant on 31.07.2025, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. 4. Ordered accordingly. 4. 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 Transfer Policy, which certainly enables an employee, who is nearing retirement, to seek transfer to one of the stations of his/her choice 3 and the respondents may also take note of the fact that, if the representation filed by the petitioner is accepted at this stage, a sum of Rs. 70,000/–, which would otherwise be paid later as TA/DA in a subsequent claim, can be saved. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Sunil)