IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3185 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tarsem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from hard area to soft area after completion of normal tenure of posting. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. He states that representation, if not already decided shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this court finds that the petitioner, who at present is working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Electrical Sub–Division Keylong, Division HPSEBL, Keylong, District Lahaul and Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has already completed his 2 normal tenure of posting in hard area and as such, in terms of transfer policy, he has approached the respondents for his transfer to soft area or one of the stations of his choice. Since representation, if any, filed by him is not being considered, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. Once it is not in dispute that transfer policy itself provides for transfer of an employee from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posing, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioner in as much as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation 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 consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. March 7, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge