2025:HHC:6040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3517 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tota Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as CHT at Government Primary School Kotla Pab, Tehsil Sillai, has not completed normal tenure of posting in terms of Transfer Policy, but since he has less than two years service for superannuation, he has filed representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) for his transfer to one of the station of his choice. Since, no action has been taken till date, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Though, it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once Transfer Policy itself provides that an employee having less than two years to retire can request for transfer to a convenient place/station subject to vacancy and at present there are vacancies in schools, as detailed in the representation, this court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided 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-3) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 thereupon 2 taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3