Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37320 (HP)

AJAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17704/2025 · 2025-11-14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17704 of 2025 Decided on: 14th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Verender Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is serving Trained Graduate Teacher (Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Lohardi (Chhota Bhangal), District Kangra, H.P. His grievance is that on completion of requisite tenure at the aforesaid station which falls in hard area/ Sub-Cadre area in terms of applicable transfer policy, he preferred representation on 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-2, colly.) 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 seeking transfer to a station of his choice also indicating therein adverse family circumstances faced by him. The representation was repeated on 12.10.2025, however, till date, respondents have not considered and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2, colly.) in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy, within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 14, 2025 Judge yogesh