IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18337 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.11.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Tenzin Dorje …….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: Ms. Priyanka Chandel and Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Clerk in the office of SDO (C), Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station, which is claimed to be hard/difficult area, to soft area or to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting in hard/difficult area, in time bound manner. 2. 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 represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Since it is quite apparent from the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/difficult area, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee serving in hard/difficult area, to seek transfer to soft area, after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 orders thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)