IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4705 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shanti Devi Pandit …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer (English) in Government Senior Secondary School, Sechunala, Pangi, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, on account of her having completed normal tenure of posting at tribal area. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit that petitioner has been working at present place of posting since year 2006 i.e. for approximately 19 years and as such, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 she is entitled to be transferred to one of the station of her choice, in terms of transfer policy, which clearly provides that an employee, after his/her having served hard/tribal area, can seek posting at one of the station of his/her choice. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in tribal area, coupled with the fact that she has already filed representation before the competent authority for redressal of her grievance, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in time bound manner. 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 pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the 3 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly provides that an employee, after his/her having served hard/tribal area, can seek posting at one of the station of his/her choice. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)