2025:HHC:5379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3249 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 working as JBT in Government Primary School Paloila, Education Block Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to transfer him from the present place of posting to soft area or the station of his choice. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that petitioner herein has been working in hard area from the date of his initial appointment i.e. in the year 2005. More than 20 years have passed, but till date, petitioner has not been posted to a soft area/station of his choice, in terms of Transfer Policy, which clearly provides for transfer of an employee from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers and as such, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of petitioner inasmuch as issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner is concerned. 3. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 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 2 Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3