IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12223 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sonam Ringchen ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vanshaj Sharma, Advocate vice Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Principal GSSS Manjhol (D) Solan, District Solan, 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) in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice as detailed in prayer clause as well as representation on account of adverse family circumstances. 2. It is averred in the petition that mother of the petitioner, who is 80 years old, is suffering from serous ailment and as such, is required to be provided adequate medical care. Since there is none to take care of the petitioner, petitioner made representation to the - 2 - respondents to transfer him to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on account of adverse family circumstances, but since nothing was done by the competent authority, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. No doubt, petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but once it is not in dispute that transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. 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 a speaking order taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which enables an employee to seek transfer to one - 3 - of the stations of choice after completion of normal tenure at one station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge