IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9979 of 2025 Date of Decision:21.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kamla Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (NM), at Government Middle School Bulang u/c Government Senior Secondary School Dharmehar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation as well as relief clause-II of the petition on the ground that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and adverse family circumstances. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and on account of illness of her father-in-law, who is stated to be suffering from serious ailment i.e. cancer, it may not be possible for her to remain posted at present place of posting, rather she is required to be transferred to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, so that she is able to take care of her father-in-law. Besides above, it has been further stated that husband of the petitioner is also suffering from spinal injury. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that though petitioner may have completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but that cannot be a ground to transfer her, rather it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. However, he fairly stated that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with transfer policy. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer policy provides for minimum tenure 3 of three years at one station and father-in-law of the petitioner is seriously ill, 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 (Annexure P-2)of the petitioner 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 transfer policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 21,2025 (shankar)