IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13873 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Non- Medical) at Government High School, Gulabgarh u/s Government Senior Secondary School Jamniwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation, on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition that for more than nine years petitioner has been working at Government High School, Gulabgarh, but yet his prayer for transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice is not being considered for extraneous reason. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that mere completion of normal tenure of posting at one station may not be a ground to seek transfer, rather it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed more than nine years at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decided the representation dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered 3 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 transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29,2025 (shankar)