( 2025:HHC:29065 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13858 of 2025 Decided on: 28th August, 2025 Radha Devi .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, 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 has submitted that the petitioner has already represented to the competent authority for her transfer in terms of Clause 5.4 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 and her representation has not been decided till date. He submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, at this stage, in case time bound direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29065 ) 2 3. The record reveals that the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-3 bears the date 09.05.2025. Sufficient time has already elapsed, but the decision as alleged has not been taken on the representation of the petitioner. 4. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-3 within a period of three weeks from today, strictly in terms of Clause 5.4 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 28, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge