IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17987 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Naseer Mohammad …….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. Surender K. Sharma and Ms. Anita Parmar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Biyoti (Garola), Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representations (Annexure P-2 & P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area. 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 otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since petitioner belongs to tribal area, he cannot avail 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 benefit in terms of Clause 16.5 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as far as station of choice is concerned. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner belongs to district cadre and moreover, he does not belongs to tribal area, rather he is a resident of Tehsil Churah, which is not tribal area, but is hard area and as such, condition as contained in Clause 16.5 with regard to minimum tenure of five years is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 4. Since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, there appears to be no impediment inasmuch as issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-2 & P-3) 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 20, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)