IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17287 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Tilak Raj …….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: Ms. Nisha, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 DPE at GSSS Samore, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from present place of posting to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of couple case. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but prayer has been made to transfer him from afore station to one of the station of his choice, on the ground of couple case. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit that wife of the petitioner is also serving in Education Department and at present, she is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Sakari, Tehsil Baijnath, District Mandi. 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 since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he is not entitled to seek transfer. 4. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once Clause 5.4 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 3 an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of the fact that wife of the petitioner is also Government employee and at present, she is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Sakari, Tehsil Baijnath, District Mandi. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)