Rajat Sondal Vs the MD Hpsfdcl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11651 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025

__________________________________________________________ Rajat Sondal …….Petitioner Versus The Managing Director, H.P. Forest Station Development Corporation Ltd. ….Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Forest Guard at Forest Working Division, Chamba at Tissa Unit, District Chamba, H.P., 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 soft area or one of the station of his choice, as detailed in the representation, on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station i.e. two winters and three summers, in time bound manner.

¶7

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 respondent, who is otherwise

¶8

represented by Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Ms. Dhiman fairly states

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶12

Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present station, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee working in hard/tribal area to seek transfer to soft area, after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in time bound manner.

¶13

Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondent, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondent to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three 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.

¶14

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶16

July 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Rajat Sondal v. the MD Hpsfdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Sondal v. the MD Hpsfdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shashi Rattan Vs State of Hp and Others

Anita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Prem Singh and Others Vs Hrtc and Another

Sandeep Vs the State of Hp and Others

Gajender Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others