2025:HHC:7929 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4413 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shishu Pal ……...Petitioner Versus HPSEBL …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: M/s. Daleep Singh Kaith and Saroj, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through instant petition, petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant Engineer at General Hydro Power House Electrical Sub Division Ghanvi Division Jeori, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P. has laid challenge to order dated 6.2.2025 Annexure P/1, whereby he has been ordered to be transferred to the office of SE (DSP), Shimla, H.P. against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in petition and further canvassed by Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate representing the petitioner is that the petitioner is not permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting and such impugned order passed in violation of transfer policy deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2025:HHC:7929 - 2 - 3. Learned counsel representing the respondent states that the petitioner has already completed almost two years at the present place of posting and he otherwise being Class-I officer cannot take shelter of Transfer Policy. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is Class-1 officer and he has worked at present place of posting for more than one and half year, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order. 5. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is physically disabled person coupled with the fact that there is vacant post at Electrical Division Bhawanagr and Electrical Division Kumarsain, this court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with, reserving liberty to petitioner to file the representation to the competent authority within a period of one week for cancellation/adjustment at nearby station, which in turn shall be decided by competent authority within a period of two weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is physically disabled person. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, is not decided by the competent authority, he shall not be compelled to join at the 2025:HHC:7929 - 3 - transferred station, if not already relieved. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma) mamta Judge