IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14213 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonia Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Tarun K. Sharma, 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 TGT (Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School Barach, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, 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-1Colly.), 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 that she is a divorcee and there is none to take care of her son and old age father. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, states that an employee being divorcee cannot claim transfer to a particular station, rather in that regard, sole prerogative is of the employer. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that she has completed normal tenure at present place of posting coupled with the fact that transfer policy for- mulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for com- pletion of minimum tenure of three years at one station, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioner in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and de- cide her pending representation. Besides above, this Court finds that petitioner, being divorcee, is finding it difficult to stay in far flung area from her native place i.e. District Hamirpur, as a result thereof, there is none to take of her old age father as well as son, who is studying in 7th standard in District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 4. 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- cide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-1 Colly.), expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity 3 of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon tak- ing note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 3, 2025 manjit