IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15661 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sujata Devi …….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. Happy T/hakur, 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 JBT in GPS Siun, Education Block Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which is a sub-cadre area, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondent to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on account of completion of normal tenure of posting at present place. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 states that representation, if not already decided, shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner in the instant petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting i.e. sub cadre area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/sub-cadre area to soft area or one of the stations of choice after completion of normal tenure of posting, prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be considered. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to de- cide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-4), expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Or- dered 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 a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand dis- posed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26, 2025 manjit