IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16185 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Bharti Kapoor …….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. Tek Chand, 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): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) in GMS Daroga, under complex GSSS Chaned, District Chamba, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, in time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit that since parents-in-law of the petitioner are old aged and there is none to take care of them, she is required to be posted at the place, near to her native place. 3. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Once it is not in dispute that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, 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 her pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, on account of adverse family circumstances. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)