IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15311 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Akshat Shama …….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. Vikrant Chandel, 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 Medical Officer at PHC Tharoach, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which is a rural/difficult area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure in rural/difficult area. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, fairly states that repre- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 sentation, if not already decided, shall be considered expeditiously in ac- cordance with law. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure coupled with the fact that transfer pol- icy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an em- ployee to seek transfer from rural/difficult area to soft area or one of the sta- tions of his choice after completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. three summers and two winters, this court sees no impediment in issuing direc- tion to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Ordered accor- dingly. 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 taking note of transfer policy. Pending applica- tions, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 22, 2025 manjit