IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14249 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vishal …….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: Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocate. 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 Assistant Professor (Political Science) at Government Degree College Rey, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby prayer has been made by the petitioner to transfer him from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground that he is disabled to the extent of 40%. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expedi- tiously. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that petitioner is 40% disabled, as a result of which, he is finding it difficult to serve at present place of posting. Section 2(r) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly provides that per- son with 40% benchmark disability, be considered as disabled per- son. Since petitioner is having disability of more than 40%, he other- wise being disabled person could not have been transferred to hard/tribal area. 4. In the afore background, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending re- presentation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, in terms of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as instructions issued from time to time with regard to posting of person with 40% disability. 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 detailed speaking order thereu- 3 pon, taking note of observations made hereinabove. Pending applica- tions, if any, also stand disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 3, 2025 manjit