IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15481 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mr. Kapil Dev …….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: Ms. Anchal Sharma, 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 TGT (Arts) in Government Middle School Jamnu, under complex Government Senior Secondary School, Tattapani, District Mandi, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan 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, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, 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 Deputy 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 adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, as detailed in the representation as well as petition. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)