IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16601 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Munish Bakshi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (NM) at GHS Teshan u/c GSSS Baragaon, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of adverse family circumstances. 2. It has been averred in the petition that son of the petitioner has recently undergone heart surgery from AIIMS Delhi, as such, he is required to be taken to the hospital frequently for check- ups and treatment. Since save and except petitioner, there is none to take son of the petitioner to the hospital, coupled with the fact that petitioner is presently posted at 300 Kms away from his native place, he has filed representation to the respondents/department to transfer him to one of the stations near to his native place, but since till date, no order has been passed on the representation, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly states that representation, if any, made by the petitioner for his transfer on account of adverse family circumstances shall be considered sympathetically. 4. Though this Court finds that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but since Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment from one station to another on account of adverse family circumstances, there appears to be no 2 impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from today. 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 taking note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. October 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3