IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14195 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suman Lata …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (School Cadre) in Physics in P.M. Shri Government (Boys) Senior Secondary School, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby prayer has been made by the petitioner to transfer her from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground of adverse family circumstances and couple case. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who states pe- titioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting and at no point of time, request, if any, ever came to be made at her behest for transfer on the ground of couple case, prayer made by the petitioner deserves outright rejection. 3. Though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but as per learned counsel for the petitioner, she has been working within the radius of 30kms from the present place of posting, for more than 4.5 years and as such, it cannot be said that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting coupled with the fact that transfer policy itself enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient place on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as couple case. 4. Since husband of the petitioner is also working in the Education Department and at present, he is posted at Govt. Middle School Mandal, Kangra, and there is none to take care of father of the petitioner, prayer made by her in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation in time bound manner, needs to be accepted. 5. 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 direction to the respondents/competent authority to de- 3 cide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered 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 a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 3, 2025 manjit