IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.795 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Tej Singh …….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. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Centre Head Teacher at GCPS Sanwal, Education Block Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on the ground of adverse family circumstances, in time bound manner. 2. Though it has been fairly admitted at the behest of petitioner that he has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, but transfer has been sought primarily on the ground of illness of his wife, who has recently undergone three knee surgeries. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, he is not entitled to seek transfer. He states that otherwise also, mere completion of tenure at one station does not entitle an employee to seek transfer/adjustment to another station. 4. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by State of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances, this Court sees no impediment inasmuch as issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) 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 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 08, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)