IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11373 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surender 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. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Tozing, District Lahaul & Spiti, 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 station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, which is a hard/tribal area, in time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Since it is not in dispute that an employee after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting in tribal/hard area i.e. two winters and three summers can seek transfer to soft area or one of the station of his choice, coupled with the fact that he has completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 the pending representation (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 orders thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, 3 relevant provisions whereof have been already taken note hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)