IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21297 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jarnail Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Arts) at Government Middle School, Khel u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Jaunta, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to a station, which is near to the place of posting of the petitioner’s wife as per Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy/OM dated 10.07.2013. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, required to be transferred from present place of posting to a station, which is near to the station of his wife, who is also working as Staff Nurse at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Tanda, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Khaol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that mere completion of tenure of an employee at particular station does not entitle him to seek transfer to other station, rather prerogative in that regard is of the employer to post an employee at particular station as per requirement. 4. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station and enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of couple case, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, 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 3 of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy OM dated 10.07.2013, wherein provision has been made to make transfer on the ground of couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 01, 2026 (shankar)