IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.961 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Chandan Gautam …….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. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Veterinary Pharmacist at Veterinary Dispensary, Darcha District, Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on medical grounds. 2. Though, it has been fairly admitted in the petition that the petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, but transfer has been sought on medical grounds. Since petitioner has recently undergone knee surgery and is finding it difficult to continue at present place of posting, has made representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that adequate medical facilities are available in District Lahaul & Spiti, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 4. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. However having taken note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh which enables an employee to seek transfer on medical grounds, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (shankar)