IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17285 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Supriya …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Operator Theatre Assistant at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Medical College & Hospital, Chamba, District Chamba, 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-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure at present place of posting and her husband is also working at PGI, Chandigarh. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that mere factum of completion of tenure at one station may not be ground to seek transfer, rather it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station. 3. Though this Court finds no reason to differ with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, but since transfer Policy itself provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and her husband is also working at PGI, Chandigarh, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Ordered 3 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 thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 07, 2025 (Sunil)