IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1033 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sumita Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT Medical at GHS Bharari, under complex GUSSS Kakira, Tehsil Bhatiyat, District Chamba, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the grounds that she has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting as well as medical grounds, in time bound manner. 2. 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. Mr. Kahol states that mere completion of tenure at one station cannot be a 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ground to seek transfer, rather sole prerogative in that regard is of the employer. 3. True, it is that it is sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee anywhere in the State, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by State of Himachal Pradesh, itself prescribes for completion of minimum tenure of three years at one place and besides this, employee can also seek transfer on medical grounds, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within 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 a speaking order taking note of transfer policy as well as observation made herein above. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)