IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17653 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lavleen 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. Inder 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 TGT (Non-Medical) in Government High School, Narwandhi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on medical grounds. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but on account of his illness, he is finding it difficult to render his services at present place of posting and as such, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 has approached competent authority by way of representation for his transfer to a convenient station, but since no order till date upon the representation has been passed by the respondents, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting, he is not entitled to be transferred, however, representation, if any, for transfer on medical ground, if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds from one station to other, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), 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 3 appropriate order, taking note of the documents adduced on the record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that he is not physically well. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 13,2025 (shankar)