IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3927 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Non- Medical) at Government High School, Seri u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Pujarli-3, Block Tikkar, Tehsil Tikkar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore school to other school or one of the stations of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure of posting and adverse family circumstances. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Close scrutiny of pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are otherwise supported by an affidavit, reveals that the petitioner herein was appointed as TGT (Non-Medical) on contract basis vide order dated 26.02.2022 and since then he is posted at Government High School, Seri u/c Government Senior Secondary School, Pujarli-3, Block Tikkar, Tehsil Tikkar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which is a difficult/hard area. Services of the petitioner were subsequently regularized on 15.07.2024, but even thereafter, he remained posted in the school, as detailed hereinabove. Since petitioner has already completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that his old aged mother is suffering from various ailments and there is none to take care of her in the family, he has filed representation to the competent authority for his transfer on the grounds, as detailed hereinabove, but since no action has been taken till date, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that petitioner herein cannot be 3 said to have completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting because his services were regularized on 15.07.2024. However, this Court is not impressed with aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General. 4. If the transfer policy is perused in its entirety, it nowhere makes any distinction between an employees appointed on contract basis or on regular basis, rather it simply talks about completion of normal tenure of posting i.e. three years. Since, it is quite apparent from the material available on record that petitioner has already completed his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and he has adverse family circumstances, prayer made on his behalf for transfer deserves to be considered. 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 (Annexure P-3) 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed order thereupon taking note of transfer policy. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate 4 proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 20, 2025 (shankar)