IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8509 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Vikas Patyal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and 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 Pharmacy Officer at PHC Ghorna Balson, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 20.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on account of adverse family circumstances, in time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit that father of the petitioner is 83 years old and presently he is on wheel-chair. Since here is none to take care of father of the petitioner, he made representation to the competent authority to transfer him to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, enabling him to take care of his father in fag-end of life. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that PHC Ghorna Balson is not a hard area, however, he fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Deputy 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 his pending representation dated 20.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, on account of adverse family circumstances. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)