IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9987 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Pooja Rani …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. 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): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Pharmacist Officer at PHC Deoli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representations (Annexure P-7 & P-8), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that present place of posting has been de-notified vide notification dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-5), in time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition that pursuant to notification dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-5), as detailed hereinabove, present place of posting has been de-notified, as a result thereof, petitioner has been declared surplus. On account of de-notification of present place of posting, status of petitioner has been changed, as such, she approached respondents by way of representations, as detailed hereinabove, for 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 adjustment at convenient station, but since same are not being decided, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representations (Annexure P-7 & P-8) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks from today, taking note of the fact that present place of posting of the petitioner has been de-notified and she has been declared surplus. 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)