IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15502/2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 Sandeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Ms. Urvashi Rajta and Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner & respondent No.3 are serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Medical). Respondents-State issued an office order on 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School Sakri District Kangra to Government Senior Secondary School B.C. Thach, District Mandi vice respondent No.3. The said order was issued to adjust/transfer respondent No.3 as she had completed her normal tenure at the hard area. The petitioner has, though, joined in compliance to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 aforesaid office order, however, his grievance is that he could not have been transferred to a hard area as he had already rendered service for a period of about six and half years i.e. w.e.f. 04.12.2008 to 07.05.2015 at Government Senior Secondary School, Guwan, Educational Block Mehal, District Chamba, a hard area. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is being discriminated inasmuch as he has been transferred to a hard area under the impugned office order, despite having already served in a hard area for more than the requisite tenure, in terms of applicable transfer policy, he is required to be posted at some other place. Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner has made a representation on 23.07.2025 to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of the grievances made in this writ petition, but till date the representation has not been considered and decided by the said respondent/competent authority. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, he is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the competent authority be directed to decide the representation, to be made by him, in accordance with law, within time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 3 4. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th October, 2025(rohit)