IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3339 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonu Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Through instant petition, petitioner has made a very innocuous prayer to issue directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-5), in a time bound manner. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajat Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner herein is entitled to be transferred from present place of posting to some other station in terms of Clause C(1) of the notification dated 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 21.11.2021 (Annexure P-3) and letter dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P- 6), which provides for inter-district transfer, but yet his prayer for transfer is not being considered on one pretext or the other. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of Clause C(1) of the notification dated 21.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), which specifically provides for inter-district transfer. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. 3 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)