2025:HHC:4198 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2919 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kamal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, 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) Petitioner herein, who at present is serving as TGT (Arts) at Government High School Nalyana, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for issuing direction to the respondents to decide his pending representation for transfer from present place of posting to some other station on the ground of ailment of his son. 2. Though, having taken note of the fact that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to entertain the present petition, however, having taken note of the fact that son of the petitioner is suffering from cerebral palsy and there is none in the family to take care of him, this Court sees no impediment in directing the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2), expeditiously. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that pending representation (Annexure P-2), if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that wife of the petitioner has already expired, save and except petitioner, there is none in the family to take care of ailing son of the petitioner. Since petitioner finds it difficult to take care of his son on account of his being posted at present place of posting, he has approached competent authority by way of representation for transfer to some other station closer to his native place. 5. 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 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, expeditiously, 2 preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take of provision contained in Transfer Policy, which also provides for transfer of an employee on the basis of ailment, if any, of his/her family members. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3