IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14847 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jeevna Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 JBT in GPS Kalangehar, Education Block Drang-II, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station, which is claimed to be difficult area, to one of the station of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting in hard/difficult area, in time bound manner. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chuahan states that present place of posting is not a hard area, however, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 having carefully perused office memorandum dated 10.07.2013, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. As per aforesaid office memorandum, Batehar Patwar Circle of Padhar Tehsil is a hard area. 3. Since present place of posting falls within the afore Patwar Circle of Padhar Tehsil, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)