IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19671 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Gumma, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to 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 station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of disability, in time bound manner. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having carefully perused pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and he is disabled to the extent of 40%. Since Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum tenure of 3-years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner is disabled, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4 Colly), 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 orders thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which provides for certain concession to disabled persons. It is however clarified that Transfer Policy provides for concession to the persons having disability of more than 60%, but this Court in judgment dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) has already clarified that 60% disability shall be read as 40%. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)