IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11829 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manjula Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol 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 Language Teacher (TGT Hindi) at Government Senior Secondary School, Barach, Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla , H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from District Shimla to District Mandi under 5% inter-district quota, in time bound manner. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed five years in District Shimla and her husband is working at ITI Mandi and as such, she may also be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transferred to District Mandi, so that their family life does not get disturbed. 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 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. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed five years of posting in District Shimla and as such, she is entitled to seek transfer from one District to another District under 5% inter-district quota, if it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 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-3 Colly) of the petitioner, expeditiously, 3 preferably, within a period of four weeks. 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 order thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee, who has already completed five years of posting in one District, to seek transfer to another District under 5% inter-district quota. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 23, 2025 (rajeev raturi)