2025:HHC:4208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2903 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ramdei ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, 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) Since petitioner, who at present is working as Shashtri at Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda, Tehsil Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and her prayer for transfer to some other station has not been considered, she is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously. 2. 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 representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, which is duly supported with an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner was appointed as Shashtri on contract basis on 30.07.2021 and since then, she has been working in Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda, Tehsil Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. In the month of September, 2024, the services of the petitioner were regularized, but yet her prayer for transfer to some other station has not been considered. As per Clause- 10 of the Transfer Policy, minimum tenure at one station would be three years. Though, there is nothing in the transfer policy that employer is estopped from transferring the employee before expiry of minimum period of three years, but in such like situations, some administrative exigency is required to be shown. Since normal tenure of posting at one station is three years, petitioner herein is well within her rights to approach competent authority for transfer to some other station, which in turn is to be decided by the competent authority taking note of relevant factors. 2 4. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 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 thereafter. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3