IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11561 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anita Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri at GMS Kurthala, u/c GSS Kiri, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation. 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 in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, her prayer for transfer from hard area to soft area cannot be considered at this stage. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting i.e. two winters and three summers. If it is so, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for transfer deserves to be considered in light of provisions contained in the Transfer Policy, which enables an employee, who is serving in hard area, to seek transfer to soft area after completion of normal tenure i.e. two winters and three summers, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three weeks today. Needless to say, authority 3 concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Sunil)