Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8222 (HP)

VIKAS MAHAJAN v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/3170/2025 · 2025-03-06

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3170 of 2025 Decided on: 6th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vikas Mahajan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate proxy Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) at GHS Ananehar, under complex GSSS Lylh, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, stated to be a hard and difficult area. On completion of his normal tenure, the petitioner furnished a representation to the respondents on 24.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), seeking transfer to a soft area of his choice. Petitioner’s grievance is that the aforesaid representation has not been considered and decided by the respondents as yet. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner would be content in case he is permitted to prefer a fresh representation to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation to respondent No.2/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by respondent No.2/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh