IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20245 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Norbu Gailson …….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. Mohit 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): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GCPS Tailing, Education Block Kaza, District Lahaul & Spiti, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station, which is claimed to be tribal area, to one of the station of his choice, which also falls in tribal area, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting in tribal area, 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that since petitioner belongs to tribal area, minimum 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 tenure at one station should be five years and as such, he is not entitled to be transferred, as has been prayed in the instant proceedings. 3. Since petitioner, who is resident of tribal area, has completed more than three years at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer from one station to other station, after completion of normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 4. 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 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 22, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)