2025:HHC:4202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2913 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Neha Dhiman ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep K.Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, very innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner to issue direction to the respondents to decide her pending representations dated 10.10.2024 and 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-3 & P-4) in a time bound manner. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sandeep K.Pandey, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner, who at present is working as TGT (NM) in Government Senior Secondary School Gaonsari, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, though has completed her normal tenure of posting in hard area, but yet her prayer for a transfer to soft area has not been considered. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representations dated 10.10.2024 and 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-3 & P-4)filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that since the petitioner was regularized on 12.07.2024, she cannot be permitted to claim that she has completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, however, this Court is not in agreement with the aforesaid plea of Mr. Rajan Kahol, for the reason that transfer policy if perused in its entirety, nowhere makes difference between employee appointed on contract base or on regular basis. Since there is specific provision contained in the transfer policy that an employee, after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, shall be entitled to be posted to soft area of his/her choice, prayer made in the instant petition on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the competent authority. 2 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations dated 10.10.2024 and 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-3 & P-4) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking order thereupon taking note of provision contained in the transfer policy. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3