IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.939 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since petitioner herein, who is working as PGT (Pol. Science) has completed his normal tenure of posting in hard area, but his prayer for transfer to one of the stations of his choice in terms of transfer policy, is not being considered, he is compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs: (A. that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioner contained in Annexure P-3 as per transfer policy.) - 2 - 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in the hard area, he is entitled to be posted in the soft area i.e. one of the stations of his choice, but despite repeated requests, no order of transfer is being issued, as a result thereof, petitioner is compelled to work in hard area for an indefinite period, which is otherwise not permissible in terms of provisions contained in the transfer policy. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that representation filed by the petitioner for redressal of grievance, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in terms of the transfer policy. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance before respondent No.2, this court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the competent authority/respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the petitioner for transfer from hard area to the one of the station of his choice in terms of transfer policy, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall - 3 - afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved. 5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge