IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17507 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Pallavi 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. S.P. Chatterji and Mr. R.K. Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with 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 TGT (Arts) at GSSS Seri Batwara, 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-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from present place of posting to one of the station of her choice, as detailed in Para No.7 of the petition as well as representation, on the ground of completion of normal tenure of posting as well as couple case. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and as such, she is required to be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transferred to some other station. Since husband of the petitioner is also employed as SSA (Junior Engineer) in Bhakra Beas Management Board at Slappar, which is at a distance of about 90 kilometers from the present place of posting, prayer has been made on her behalf to transfer her at a station, which is near to Slappar. 3. 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 normal tenure of posting at one station does not entitle an employee to seek transfer, rather in that regard, sole prerogative is of an employer to post an employee at a particular station, as per requirement, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, itself provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station and it also enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, 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 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 taking note of Transfer Policy, 3 formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as observations made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)