IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16223 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Singh Rana …….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. Ayan Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Head Master at Government High School, Bhandar u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Manjheer, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that father of the petitioner, who is 85 years old, is seriously ill 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and as such, he requires constant care and attention of his son i.e. petitioner. Since distance between present place of posting and native place of the petitioner is more than 200 Kms, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he has filed representation to the competent authority to adjust him at one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, but since same has not been decided, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that mere completion of normal tenure at one station cannot be a ground to seek transfer, rather in that regard it is the prerogative of the employer. 4. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court having taken note of serious illness of father of the petitioner, as is evident from the averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, sees no 3 impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) 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 transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 15,2025 (shankar)