IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15085 of 2025 Date of Decision:18.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Neelam Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT ( Arts) at Government High School, Khouli, Seeraj-II u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Gada-Gussaini, Tehsil Balichowki, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which is stated to be a hard area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice on account of the fact that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by the affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, coupled with the fact transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee working in hard area to seek transfer to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winter and three summers, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18,2025 (shankar)