IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19293 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Archana Sharma …….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. R.S. Jagota, proxy counsel, for Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GMS Sandha, u/c GSSS Ootpur, District Mandi, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, 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 states that mere completion of tenure at one station cannot be a 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ground to seek transfer, rather sole prerogative in that regard is of the employer. 3. True, it is that it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee anywhere in the State, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by State of Himachal Pradesh, itself prescribes for completion of minimum tenure of three years at one place and besides this, employee can also seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within four 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 petitioner and pass a speaking order taking note of transfer policy as well as observation made herein above. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)