IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15607 of 2025 Date of Decision:26.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhadar Singh …….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. Inder Sharma, 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. Mr ___________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Peon (Class-IV) in PM Shri Government Senior Secondary School, Pangna, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of disability. 2. It is averred at the behest of the petitioner that he is disabled to the extent of 60% and as such, is entitled to be posted at a station of his choice/ convenience in terms of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee having disability to seek transfer to a station of his choice or convenience. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. 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 states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be allowed. 4. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables disabled employee to seek transfer/ adjustment at a convenient station, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 appropriate order, taking note of observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 2. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26,2025 (shankar)