IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 2467 of 2025 Decided on : 19th February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Meenu Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Heard. Notice. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. Petitioner [Meenu Rani] presently working as Trained Graduate Teacher [Non-Medical] in GSSS, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan [HP], has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 i) That writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within prescribed time period; (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No.2 to transfer the petitioner nearby the station where her husband is posed, being a couple case as provided in Clause 5.4 of the Transfer Policy or against vacancy of TGT(NM) longer stay by clubbing previous stay within 30KM. 3. In background of the prayers referred to above, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on Instructions, states that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh is directed to examine the Representation dated 29.05.2024 [Annexure P-1], seeking consideration of her case for transfer in view of the hardships being faced by petitioner as indicated therein, which is stated to be pending. 4. Per Contra, Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer on the ground that petitioner does not have any legal or vested right to invoke the remedy before this Court for seeking transfer from present place of posting 3 to another station and therefore, no indulgence may be shown. 5. Above submission made by Learned State Counsel, in considered view of this Court, does not stand to logical and rationale. It is trite law that an employee facing hardships has every right to seek consideration and redressal thereof by making representation to the Competent Authority, which has to be examined expeditiously instead of sitting over the same endlessly, which does not confirm to fairness in State action. In the instant case representation dated 29.5.2024 [Annexure P-1] made the petitioner for redressal of grievance(s) appears to have remained unattended as yet, and no response has been conveyed to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner of the reasons for inaction or non-acceptance of his request, so as to enable him to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 4 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court, disposes of the instant writ petition, with the following directions : (i) Respondent No.2-Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla shall examine the representation dated 29.05.2025, Annexure P-1 [if not already dealt] and pass appropriate orders, thereof in accordance with law, on or before on or before 28.03.2025; (iii) Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to merits and all questions are left open, which may be examined / considered by respondents, hereinafter, in accordance with law; (iii) No order as to costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) February 19, 2025 Vacation Judge (tm/Vriti)