IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13239 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Seema Rana …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, 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, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Non- Medical) at Government High School, Datyar u/c Government Model Senior Secondary School, Rajri Jabli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 29.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation, on account of the fact that she is about to retire within two years four months. 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 as per transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee, having less than three years to retire, can seek transfer at a convenient station, whereas present petitioner has more than two years four months to retire and as such, present petition is not maintainable. 3. It is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that petitioner is due to retire in the month of February, 2028, meaning thereby petitioner is left with more than two years, whereas transfer policy provides relaxation to employees left with less than two years of service. However, taking note of the fact that in another six months petitioner would be eligible to seek transfer on aforesaid ground, 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 representation dated 29.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 22,2025 (shankar)