IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11401 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. s 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 Headmaster at Govt. High School, Galeha, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, 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 is going to retire within a period of six months, 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 necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 Clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides that an employee, who has less than two years to retire, can seek transfer at convenient station, coupled with the fact that petitioner is left with only six months of service, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in 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 ten days, taking note of Clause 5.5 of the Transfer Policy. 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 and petitioner at the time of personal 3 hearing, may also point out or bring to the notice of the Department any station, where he can be posted/adjusted. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)