IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21255 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Provinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant Professor (Commerce) at Government Degree College, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 2. Having regard to the nature of 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on his behalf deserves outright rejection. 3. Though, having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 order, taking note of the observations made hereinabove as well as factum of illness of father of the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 01,2026 (shankar)