IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12575 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Abhinash Bharti …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Junior Basic Teacher, on contract basis, at Government Primary School, Upper Sehri, Education Block Rakkar, District Kangra, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representations (Annexure P-4 to P-6), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of disability of his son, in time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he cannot seek direction to transfer him 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from the present station, rather, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to transfer an employee at a particular station, however, he fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Though this Court finds no quarrel with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, itself provides for some concession to employee having child with disability, coupled with the fact that petitioner herein has already filed representations to the department concerned for redressal of his grievance, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representations (Annexure P-4 to P-6) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Office Memorandums dated 17.09.2015 and 08.10.2018, wherein certain concessions have been provided to officials having disabled dependents. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 04, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)