IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9887 of 2025 Date of Decision:20.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ravinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Khem Raj, Shivanshu Attri and Kapil Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Superintendent Grade-II in the Office of B.M.O. Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has sought transfer from afore station to B.M.O. Office, Gopalpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh on medical grounds. 2. It is averred in the petition that since 75% liver of the petitioner has been damaged, it may not be possible for him to stay far away from his native place. Since petitioner is under treatment 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from Dr. R.P.G.M.C. Tanda, which is near to Gopalpur, he by way of representation, as detailed hereinabove, has prayed for his transfer from afore station to Gopalpur. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Khaol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on his behalf though does not deserves to be considered, but taking note of his medical condition, representation, if any, filed by him shall be decided in accordance with transfer policy. 4. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 appropriate order, taking note of documents adduced on record as well as transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek 3 transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 20,2025 (shankar)