2025:HHC:3669 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2707 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ravi Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, 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) Petitioner herein, who is serving as TGT (Non-Medical) w.e.f. 15.11.2019 at Government High School, Deval Tikkar, U/c GSSS Kujji, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved on account of non-consideration of his representations dated 16.12.2024 and 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-1 Colly), wherein he has prayed for his transfer from aforesaid station to some other station in District Una. 2. Initially, petitioner filed representation on 16.12.2024, but since no heed was paid to the same, he was compelled to file another representation dated 14.02.2025. Though, it is sole discretion of employer to transfer an employee, but certainly an employee is entitled to seek transfer from one station to another in terms of transfer policy 2025:HHC:3669 2 promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh. No doubt, as per transfer policy, normal tenure of posting at one station is three years, but admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner has been serving at present place of posting since 15.11.2019 and as such, he is well within his right to make representation to the department for his transfer to some other station. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondents. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, fairly states that representation(s), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair statement given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to respondents to decide the pending representation(s) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon taking note of provisions contained in the transfer policy, which admittedly provides for minimum tenure of posting of an employee at one station 2025:HHC:3669 3 for three years. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge