IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10481 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, 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, who is working as a Superintendent Grade-II at GSSS Sohari, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide his representation dated 26.5.2025, forwarded on 18.6.2025 (Annexure P-5) to the competent authority, in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his adjustment at GSSS Dehar, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, Mandi against vacant post. 2. Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed therein, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that only a year ago, he has been adjusted at Sohari, Bilaspur and now again request has been made to adjust him at another station, as such, present petition be dismissed. Mr. Chauhan further states that otherwise, it is the prerogative of the employer to post an employee and employee has no vested right to seek posting at a 1 particular station. 5. Though, having taken note of the fact that one year back petitioner was adjusted at present place of posting at his own request and he has not completed his normal tenure there, this court sees no justification to accept the prayer made in the present petition, however, having taken note of adverse family circumstances of petitioner, which were apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the competent authority within a period of four weeks seeking adjustment at a convenient station, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. 6 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 speaking order thereafter, taking note of the fact that father of petitioner is suffering from disability and enabling clause 5.6 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013, which provides for concession to officials having differently abled dependents. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez) 2