IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10051 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nikhil …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, 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 TGT (Non- Medical) at GMS Chilla, u/c GSSS Chopal, Education Block Chopal, District Shimla, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation. 2. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that there is none to take care of his ailing mother and wife, he has approached competent 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 authority by way of representation, seeking therein transfer from afore station to a station near his native place. Since no action till date has been taken upon the same, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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 represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, fairly states that mere completion of normal tenure at present place of posting may not be ground to seek transfer because it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post employee at a particular station. However, Mr. Verma, fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided in a time bound manner. 4. True it is that mere completion of normal tenure may not be ground to seek transfer, but certainly Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on account of adverse family circumstances. In the case at hand, it been averred in the petition that father of the petitioner has expired in 2017 and thereafter, there is none to look after ailing mother and wife of the petitioner, who has otherwise delivered child two months’ back. Since petitioner has already completed normal 3 tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy enables an employee to file representation seeking transfer on the grounds, as detailed hereinabove, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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-3) expeditiously, preferably within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. 6. 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 relevant part have been discussed hereinabove. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (Sunil)