IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19013 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar …….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. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. 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): Through instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer/adjustment at one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 2. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by affidavit, reveals that petitioner, who is 40% disabled, has been recently promoted from the post of Head Teacher to Central Head Teacher and has been transferred from GPS Rara Manwana, Education Block Gopalpur-II, District Mandi to GCPS Mahog, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Education Block Karsog-I, District Mandi, vide order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-1). 3. Since on account of adverse family circumstances, petitioner is finding it difficult to join at the transferred station, he at first instance approached respondents by way of representation, praying therein for adjustment at convenient station, but since no action was taken upon the same, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that petitioner cannot have any grouse, because he has been transferred under promotion. 5. True it is that perusal of office order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) suggests that petitioner has been transferred on promotion as Central Head Teacher and as such, he is otherwise required to join at the transferred station, but having taken note of adverse family circumstances, as detailed in the representation, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached competent authority for redressal of his grievance, 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 3 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. 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 thereupon taking note of the fact that petitioner is 40% disabled and his mother is a cancer patient. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)