IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16825 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Patwant Singh …….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. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for cancellation of his transfer, ordered vide order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from State CID Unit, Baddi to District Shimla. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that though petitioner, who is serving as Sub-Inspector in Police Department is not entitled to concession, if any, in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on account of his being member of Police services, but yet, representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 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 petitioners and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 29, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)