IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.943 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….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. Tarun K. Sharma, 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 Headmaster at GHS Najan, District Kullu, HP, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the station, as detailed in the representation, on 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 petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting and as such, prayer made on his behalf for transfer is not tenable. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Though careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by affidavit, reveals that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds, this Court sees no impediment, inasmuch as issuing direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)