IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11987 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhupender Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as CHT at GPSC Tatiyana, E/B Kaffota, Tehsil Kamrau, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 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 mere factum of completion of tenure at present place of posting may not be ground to seek transfer, rather it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. 3. Though this Court finds no reason to differ with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, but once transfer Policy itself provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed more than four years at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within 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 3 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 25, 2025 (Sunil)