IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19029 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ 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: Ms. Meenakshi Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Pharmacy Officer at Primary Health Centre, Chhailla, Health Block Matiana, 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-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that mere completion of tenure of an 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 employee at particular station does not entitle him to seek transfer to other station, rather prerogative in that regard is of the employer to post an employee at particular station as per requirement, however, he fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer from one station to other on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure 4)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 the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and his mother is ill. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 02, 2025 (shankar)