IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13215 of 2025 Date of Decision:18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Ajay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant Professor (Economics) at Government Degree College, Lylh-Kothi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard/sub-cadre area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-1 colly), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting in hard/sub cadre area. 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 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by the affidavit, that petitioner has already completed more than 4 ½ years at present place of posting, which admittedly falls in hard/sub cadre area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee working in hard/sub cadre area to seek transfer to soft area or one of the stations of his choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1 colly), 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 of hearing 3 to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18,2025 (shankar)