IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12265 of 2025 Date of Decision:29.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Ayurvedic Medical Officer at Mooring, District Lahaul and Spiti, which is a hard area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting a present place of posting. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record, which are duly supported by affidavit that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers at Mooring, District Lahaul and Spiti, coupled with the fact that transfer policy enables an employee, working in hard area, to seek transfer to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decided the representation dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 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 appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 4. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29,2025 (shankar)