IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19459 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Nand Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocates. 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 (Arts) in Government Senior Secondary School Lakadhar, Shimla, 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-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 normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, which is a sub–cadre area. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call - 2 - for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, 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 normal tenure at present place of posting, which is notified as sub-cadre area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from sub-cadre area to one of the stations of choice after completion of normal tenure, 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