2025:HHC:6292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3553 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anjana Devi ……...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. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, 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 is a language teacher, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), seeking therein transfer from present place of posting to some other station on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein was appointed as a language teacher in the year 2018 and since then, she has been working at Government Middle School Kandaghat under complex GSSS-Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Though on 21.10.2021 services of the petitioner were regularized in the same school, but yet she has not been transferred. Since petitioner has already completed more than five years in the aforesaid school and there is a provision in the Transfer Policy for transfer of employee to his home district after completion of five years. Petitioner though made representation to the respondents for transfer, but since needful has not been done till date, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in a time bound manner. Since there is a specific provision in the Transfer Policy with regard to transfer of employee to his home district after his/her having completed five years in a school located outside district, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as issuance of direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation in a time bound manner. 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 2 representation (Annexure P-1) 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3