IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20329 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pooja Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (NM), GSSS Kothi, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner, whereby she has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of choice as detailed in the representation on the ground that she has completed normal tenure at present place of posting as well as on adverse family circumstances. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. - 2 - Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that mere completion of tenure at one station cannot be a ground to seek transfer, rather sole prerogative in that regard is of the employer. 3. True, it is that it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee anywhere in the State, but once transfer policy formulated by State of Himachal Pradesh, itself prescribes for completion of minimum tenure of three years at one place and besides this, an employee can also seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of the fact that mother of the petitioner is seriously ill and there is none to take care of her. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge