IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3437 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition, very innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner to issue directions to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby he has made a prayer to transfer him to some other place because he has completed normally tenure of posting at the present place. 2. From the careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner herein was appointed as TGT (Arts) on 23.2.2017 and in that capacity, he was posted at GHS Nagan, Tehsil Kotkhai, District - 2 - Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Though services of the petitioner were regularized on 22.6.2020, yet he was not transferred from the school detailed herein above. For the last eight years, petitioner has been working in the afore school and as such, made a representation to the respondents to transfer him to some other station. Though there is specific provision contained in the transfer policy with regard to minimum tenure at one station, but yet representation of the petitioner, who has admittedly completed normal tenure of posting at one place, is not being considered. 3. 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. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that representation (Annexure P-2), if not already decided, shall be decided 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 pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall also take note of the transfer policy and pass appropriate orders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file - 3 - appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge