( 2025:HHC:29067 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13880 of 2025 Decided on: 28th August, 2025 Rakesh Chand .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions to confine the prayer to the extent that the competent authority i.e. 2nd respondent be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has shown his entitlement for transfer under the Transfer Policy 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29067 ) 2 of the State, in terms of Clause 5.4 thereof, but his representation has not been decided. 4. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-4 within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before taking final decision on his representation by the competent authority. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 28, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge