IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17473 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sangharsh Saini …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Tour & Travel, at Government Degree College, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby prayer has been made to transfer him from afore station one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has not completed the normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but on account of adverse family 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 circumstances i.e. serious illness of his father, he has made representation to transfer him to one of the stations near to his native place, enabling him to take care of their ailing parents. As per the documents adduced on record, father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and his mother is also suffering from dementia. Since wife of the petitioner has already expired, there is none to take care of his ailing parents. 3. 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 Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan fairly states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but on account of adverse family circumstances, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered. 4. Since careful perusal of documents adduced on record suggest that father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and his mother is also patient of dementia , coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, 3 with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation(Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three 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 the transfer policy as well as observations made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 11, 2025 (shankar)