IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11475 of 2025 Date of Decision:17.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surinder Kumar …….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. Nitin Rishi, 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 DPE at Government Senior Secondary School Nishu, Tehsil Mandi Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the relief clause as well as representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting a present place of posting and he is suffering from psychiatric problem. 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. Vishal Panwar, 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 that too at a station, which is pointed out in the petition as well as representation, rather it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. However, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that in case, representation has been filed by the petitioner to seek transfer on medical grounds, same shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting and at present he is suffered from psychiatric problem and as such, under treatment from some Health Centre in Amritsar (Punjab). Since transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that an employee can seek transfer on medical ground, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents 3 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 pending representation dated 06.07.2025 (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 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of medical grounds, as detailed in page 19 of the paper book. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17,2025 (shankar)