2025:HHC:4200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2915 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, 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 consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) for transfer from present place of posting to some other station in a time bound manner. 2. Averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as material adduced on record, clearly reveal that petitioner, who is currently working as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Chari Dharn, Tehsil Nankahri District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has completed his normal tenure of posting and as such, has filed representation for transfer to some other station. Since 04.01.2022, petitioner has been serving in the aforesaid station and prior to his posting at the present place of posting, he served in hard/tribal areas i.e. Government Senior Secondary School Kaza, Lahaul & Spiti and Government Senior Secondary School Deothi. Since Clause-10 of Transfer Policy specifically provides for minimum tenure of posting at one station and such tenure has already completed by the petitioner, prayer made on behalf of petitioner deserves to be considered by the competent authority. 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. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of afore respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 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 decide the representation (Annexure P-1) 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 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3