IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14029 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Sapna Devi …….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. Happy Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with 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 TGT (Medical) at Government High School, Bag-Chowasi, u/c GSSS Mahog, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that she has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, in time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar 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 an employer to transfer an employee, however, pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum period of three years at one station, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner, however, since stations, as indicated in the representation are stated to have been filled-up, petitioner would be at liberty to move fresh representation before the authority concerned, enabling it to pass appropriate order. 3 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the competent authority, indicating therein vacant stations, which in-turn shall be decided by the afore authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. 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 Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, relevant provisions whereof have been already taken note hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 30, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)