IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18959 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tanzin Namgial …….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: Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at Government Centre Primary School, Kibber, Lahaur & Spiti, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4 colly), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 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. Rajan 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that he has already served more than 11 years in hard/tribal area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area or one of the stations of his choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winter and three summers, 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 representation (Annexure P-4 colly), 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 order, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 02,2025 (shankar)