IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.617 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vandana Saklani …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Medical) at Government Senior Secondary School, Gahang, Education Block Darang-1, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of her choice, as detailed in the representation on the ground that she has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area. 2. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/ area i.e. two winter and three summers, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area after her having completed normal tenure of posting in hard area, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) 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 07, 2026 (shankar)