Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32374 (HP)

RAJ KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/15921/2025 · 2025-10-09

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15921 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….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. Bonit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Barot, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which is a sub cadre area, as is evident from Notification dated 03.10.2016(Annexure P-1), has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), 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 that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in sub cadre area. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has been working at Government Senior Secondary School Barot, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which is a sub cadre area, for more than three years, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee working in hard/sub cadre area to seek transfer to soft area or one of the stations of his choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-3),of the petitioner 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 order, taking note of transfer policy as well as observation 3 made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 09, 2025 (shankar)