IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.631 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Geetanjali …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondent to consider and decide her pending representation dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent, states that though having taken note of the fact that petitioner herein was assigned the duty of ADA at Nalagarh on her own request and such 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 arrangement is purely temporary till the recruitment of new ADAs, there is no occasion, if any, to accede to her request for transfer, however representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, taking note of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07,2026 (shankar)