IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….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. Surila Sangam, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as TGT (Arts) in Government Senior Secondary School, Rohal, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, 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 stations of his choice, on account of the fact that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 2. 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 fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Since, it is quite apparent from the pleadings made in the petition as well as document adduced on record which are duly supported by an affidavit, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment from hard area to soft area after his/her completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, 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 his pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks from today. 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)