IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11497 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan and Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GCPS, Kamrau, Education Block Kaffota, District Sirmaur, is aggrieved of order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to GPS Ferog, Pinjwana, Education Block Bakras, District Sirmaur, against vacancy. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that he has completed normal tenure of posting at the present station, but challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground of adverse family circumstances. It is averred in the petition that since father of the petitioner is seriously ill and there is none to take care of him, he is required to be posted at his native place or any nearby station. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Though prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner approached respondents by way of representation (Annexure P-2 Colly), but since same has not been decided till date, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in time bound manner. 4. 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 otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma states that since petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at present station, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order, however, he fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 5. 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-2 Colly) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. 3 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, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)