IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No:2513 of 2025 Decided On : 21st February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Sita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocates General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Heard. Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. In view of the nature of order sought to be passed herein, filing of reply is dispensed with. 2. Petitioner [Sita Devi], a Senior Assistant, 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 “A) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly issued thereby directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the mandate of the policy as well as his personal hardship and transfer her from present place of posting which falls under Difficult/hard area to her choice of station, keeping in view the fact that petitioner has completed her normal tenure in the hard area i.e. Two winter and Three summers. B) That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the petitioner from his present place of posting to a station, as mentioned herein para supra above.” 3. In background of above reliefs, Learned Counsel for petitioner states that petitioner, is working as Senior Assistant [Progress], in office of Block Development Officer, Gohar, since March 2023. On account of hardships, she submitted representation dated 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-4], for redressal of hardships and for considering her case for transfer, to respondent No.2- Director of Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, which is stated to be pending. Learned Counsel for petitioner on instructions states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, respondent/State Authorities are directed to 3 examine the representation in accordance with law. 4. Per contra Learned State Counsel states that, in case, representation dated 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-4], is pending, the same shall be examined in accordance with law. 5. It is trite that, in case an employee has hardships, then, such an employee can always avail redressal of hardships by submitting representation to competent authority. In the instant case, Representation dated 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-4], was submitted but respondents have neither examined nor conveyed any orders thereon, till day. Non-communicating an order supported with reasons, has certainly deprived the petitioner of right to seek redressal by availing appropriate remedy. The State Authorities are expected to act like a model employer and Respondents cannot be permitted, to sit over the matter endlessly, as has been done, in the instant case. 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by Learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court, disposes of the instant writ petitioner with the following directions:- 4 (i) Respondent No.2-Director Rural Development is directed to examine the Representation dated 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-4] [if not already decided] and then to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law on or before 15.03.2025; (ii) Consequent upon direction No.(i), Respondent No.2 shall convey the speaking orders to the petitioner also; (iii) Needless to say, that this Court, has not adverted to merits of the claim/contentions; which are left open to be examined by State Authorities, in accordance with law; (iv) No order as to costs. 7. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) February 21, 2025 Vacation Judge (Chiranjeev)