IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17373 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Alam Chand …….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. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-5), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from GSSS Kothi Kohar, Tehsil Multhan, District Kangra, which is a sub-cadre area, to one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of disability. 2. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of posting at the present place of posting, but representation, if any filed by him, shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. In view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 three 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 taking note of the fact that petitioner is disabled to the extent of 40% and in that situation, it may be difficult for him to work at the present place of posting, which admittedly falls under the sub-cadre area. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)