IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Exe. Pet. No. 645 of 2025 Decided on: 16.06.2025 Rujal Kumar … Petitioner Versus Executive Director (Pers.), HPSEB Ltd. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pawan Chauhan, Advocate vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pawan Chauhan, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents has handed over a copy of order dated 01.04.2025, passed by the Executive Director (Pers), H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd., in terms whereof, the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was initially appointed as a T-Mate, on contract basis in the year 2021 and posted at Electrical Sub-Division, HPSEB Ltd. Killar under Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd. Killar, District Chamba, HP. His services were regularized upon completion of two years of uninterrupted contractual services in the year 2023. In terms of order passed by the Authority, the post of T-Mate is a Division Cadre post and in this view of the matter, the petitioner has to be posted in the parent Division, which happens to be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Killar, District Chamba, in the present case. On this count, the representation has been rejected by the Authority by observing that the transfer of the petitioner outside the Electrical Division is not permissible in law and if such kind of transfers are allowed, then it will disturb the seniorities which are maintained in the respective Divisions and will give rise to unnecessary litigations. 3. As this Court find that the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Authority by passing a reasoned order, therefore, without making any further observation on the office order passed by the Authority, these proceedings are closed but with liberty to the petitioner that in case, he is still aggrieved by the office order passed by the Authority dated 01.04.2025, he may assail the same, in accordance with law. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 16, 2025 (narender)