IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20503 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shilpa …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Staff Nurse in AIMSS Chamiyana, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 16.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to Bilaspur on the ground that she has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and she has been recently married to a person, who resides in Bilaspur. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that mere completion of tenure of an employee at particular station does not entitle her to seek transfer to other station, rather prerogative in that regard is of the employer to post an employee at particular station as per requirement. 3. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation dated 16.11.2025 (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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 24, 2025 (shankar)