IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19347 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, 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 DPE at GSSS Ropa, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, 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-1) in a time bound manner, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of choice as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed more than eight years at present place of posting, which is a difficult area. 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, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that petitioner has already completed more than normal tenure in hard area coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/difficult area to soft area or one of the stations of his/her choice after completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. three summers and two winters, this court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within four 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 transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge