IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10215 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar …….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. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (Physics) in Government Senior Secondary School, Phagoo, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to District Bilaspur, where his wife is already working as Lecturer (Biology). 2. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that vide order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), petitioner again came to be transferred 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from DDHE, Bilaspur to Government Senior Secondary School Phagoo, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and pursuant to afore order, petitioner has already joined at the transferred station. Since on account of aforesaid transfer, family life of the petitioner has been disturbed because of the fact that his wife is posted in District Bilaspur, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case, petitioner has filed representation to the competent authority for his adjustment at Bilaspur, but since nothing has been done upon the same, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to issue direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of the 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 since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in District Bilaspur, coupled with the fact that he has already joined at the transferred station, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 3 However, representation, if any, pending consideration to the competent authority shall be taken to its logical end. 4. Taking note of afore fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that transfer policy provides for an adjustment of government employee on the ground of couple case, 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-2) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks, taking note of transfer policy. 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. Petitioner is always at liberty to file fresh representation indicating therein stations where he can be adjusted on the ground of couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26,2025 (shankar)