IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19009 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Beena Kumari …….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. Bhupinder Thakur, 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 GMSSS Janjehli, Tehsil Thunag, 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar 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. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting 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 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, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-2) 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 the fact that husband of the petitioner is doing private job outside the State of Himachal Pradesh and there is none to take care of aged father-in-law of the petitioner as well as one minor child. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)