IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15535 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Himani Shukla …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawanish K. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Art) at Government Excellence PM Senior Second School Koti, Education Block, Mashobra, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the vacant stations, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that she has already completed more than five years at present place of posting. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that mere completion of normal tenure at one station cannot be a ground to seek transfer, rather in that regard it is the prerogative of the employer. 3. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh itself provides for minimum tenure of three years , coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed more than five years at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two 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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26,2025 (shankar)