IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.561 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Babita Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri at Government Senior Secondary School Seri Kothi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to another station, as detailed in the representation as well as relief clause, on the ground that she has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that mere completion of tenure at a particular station does not entitle an employee to seek transfer to another station, rather in that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 regard, sole prerogative lies with the employer, who may post an employee at a particular station, as per requirement. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of employer to post an employee at particular station, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending 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 orders thereupon taking note of observations made hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)