IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16389 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Desh Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Operator Grade-II, HPPWD Dalhousie Division, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he is not entitled to transfer. However, representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Though, averments contained in the petition nowhere suggest that petitioner has competed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three 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 order, taking note of the fact that mother of the petitioner is unwell and there is none to take care of her. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16,2025 (shankar)