2025:HHC:3238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.909 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Surinder Prakash ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since despite petitioner having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, prayer made on his behalf for transfer to soft area is not being considered, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to issue directions to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that if decision on the aforesaid representation has not been taken, same shall be taken expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit as well as documents 2025:HHC:3238 2 annexed thereto, this Court finds that petitioner has already completed his tenure in hard area and as such, he filed representation to respondents to transfer him to one of the station of his choice, in terms of transfer policy. 4. Since it is not in dispute that transfer policy promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh provides for transfer to one of the station of choice, after completion of normal tenure of posting in hard area, there appears to be no impediment to consider and decide the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. 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 detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge