IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10261 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sukumar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, 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 Principal, in GSSS, Kewar, District Shimla, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that he is to retire with less than a period of two years, in time bound manner. 2. Though careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, reveals that petitioner was transferred at present place of posting on 19.12.2023, that too on promotion and as such, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents/State that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but here petitioner is aggrieved on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 account of the fact that respondents have not decided his pending representation till date. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan 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 Deputy Advocate General, 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) 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee, nearing retirement, to seek transfer at one of the station of his/her choice. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)