IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11387 of 2025 Date of Decision:17.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hukam Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kaistha, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Peon at Government Senior Secondary School, Dogari, Tehsil and District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the prayer clause as well as in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting a present place of posting and on account of his disability, he is unable to work at present place of posting. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 Advocate General states that mere fact that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, may not be a ground to seek transfer, rather it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. He further submits that concession, as provided under Clause 5.3 of the transfer policy, is not available to the petitioner on account of the fact that his disability is less than 60%. 3. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has been working at present place of posting for more than 28 months and his father, who is 82 years old, is specially abled person with permanent lo-comotor disability of 60%, coupled with the fact that petitioner has filed representation to the competent authority, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the 3 pending representation dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-5), 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17,2025 (shankar)