IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10113 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Suman Kumar Banyal …….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: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, 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 Superintendent (Grade-I) at Government College, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1 Colly), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that he is going to superannuate within a period of five months and adverse family circumstances, in time bound manner. 2. Though petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but since his wife has suffered brain-stroke and there is none to take care of her, coupled with the fact that he is going to superannuate within a period of five months, he has filed representation to the competent authority, praying therein for his transfer from afore station to one of the station of his choice, enabling him to take care of his ailing wife. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, present petition deserves to be rejected, but having taken note of fact that petitioner is nearing retirement, representation, if any filed, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, that petitioner is due to retire within a period of five months, coupled with the fact that his wife has suffered brain-stroke, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1 Colly) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks, taking note of Clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee, nearing retirement, to seek transfer to one of the station of his choice. Ordered accordingly. 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. 3 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)