IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16450 of 2025 Decided on: 17.10.2025 Prakash Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner is serving as Kanungo with the respondents-Revenue Department and vide office order dated 17.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2- Director, Land Records, he has been transferred from FK Circle Aut, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi to FK Circle Chirgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid office order. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has now completed three years of service at the present place, however, the impugned order has been issued on the basis of D.O note. The petitioner is also suffering from certain adverse family circumstances. In view of all these aspects, the petitioner preferred representation on 14.10.2025 (annexure P-2), however, the same has not been considered and decided till date. On being pointed out that representation so preferred by the petitioner was not made to the competent authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make fresh representation to respondent No.2-competent authority whereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. This is not objected to by the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation for redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition to respondent No.2/competent authority. In case such representation is so made, the respondent No2/competent authority shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to 3 the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 17th October, 2025(yogesh)