IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12215 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bimla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun 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 CHT at GPS Kolar-I, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of choice on the ground of couple case. 2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and her husband is working as Regional Manager at HRTC Division Nahan and as such, she is required to be transferred to Nahan or any stations of choice. - 2 - 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Ravi states that though mere completion of tenure at one station may not be ground to seek transfer, rather it is sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee to a particular station, but representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered sympathically. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleading adduced on record that her husband is working in HRTC Division Nahan, coupled with the fact that transfer policy, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, 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. Ordered accordingly. 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 clause 5.4 of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge