IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13997 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Shartendu Bala …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Medical) at Government High School, Mandlahan u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Jamta, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on medical grounds. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and she has recently undergone surgery, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on medical grounds, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 19.07.2025 (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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 09,2025 (shankar)