IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20799 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar …….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. Rajat Kumar, 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 Chowkidar in the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 23.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to the office of Range Forest Office, Theog, Forest Division Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 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 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General states that mere completion of tenure of an employee at particular station, does not entitle him 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 more than three years at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 23.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), 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 29, 2025 (shankar)