2025:HHC:6284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3619 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yogita Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & 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, 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 working as TGT (Medical) and at present working at Government Senior Secondary School Baghal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 24.12.2024, praying therein to transfer her from aforesaid place of posting to the stations, detailed in the representation on medical grounds. 2. Perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit reveals that petitioner herein was appointed as TGT on contract basis on 18.02.2022 and since then, she has been working at Government Senior Secondary School Baghal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Since the petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that she has already filed representation to the competent authority for her transfer on medical grounds, but no action has been taken till date, she is compelled to approach 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though prayer, if any, made by the petitioner shall be considered, but she should be advised to file a fresh representation, detailing therein vacant stations. 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 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation on medical grounds before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of her grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of Transfer Policy. 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 2 order taking note of Transfer Policy, which provides for transfer on medical grounds. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3