IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18471 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the Office of HPPWD Division, Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 19.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area or one of the stations of his choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winter and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 19.10.2025 (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 November 28,2025 (shankar)