IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3455 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunil 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. Raj Thakur, 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) Since petitioner herein, who, at present is working as TGT (Non-Medical) at Govt. High School Jutrahan u/c Govt. Senior Secondary School Nadal, Education Block Sundla, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area, has completed his normal tenure of posting i.e. two winters and three summers, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to issue directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 8.1.2025 (Annexure P-2), in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. From the careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that petitioner has been working in hard area since his initial appointment. Though petitioner has served for more than five years in the hard area, but yet his prayer for transfer to soft area at one of the station of his choice 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Since there is a provision contained in the transfer policy with regard to transfer of employee serving in the hard area to the soft area or a station of choice after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached the competent authority by way of representation, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction as sought for. 5. 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 - 3 - pending representation 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 formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge