IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15517 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manisha Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 Staff Nurse at Civil Hospital Nerwa, District Shimla, 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 to one of the station of her choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of the fact that she has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting which is a sub-cadre 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that mere completion of normal tenure of posting at one station may not be a ground to seek transfer, rather, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to transfer an employee, however, pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting which is a sub-cadre area i.e. two winters and three summers, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum period of three years at one station, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 4. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms 3 of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, relevant provisions whereof have been already taken note hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)