Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16057 (HP)

DEVA NAND v. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) AND OTHERS

CWP/9078/2025 · 2025-05-30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9078 of 2025 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deva Nand …..Petitioner Versus Executive Director (Personnel) & Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Mohini Kalla, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Mohini Kalla, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is serving as Electrician (PHE) in the office of Resident Engineer, Bhaba Power House Division of the respondent-Board at Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur. His case is that on completion of 08 winters and 07 summers in the aforesaid hard & tribal area, he preferred a 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 representation to respondent No.1 on 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), but the same has not been decided till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also mentioned few stations of his choice in para 8 of the writ petition, where he can be suitably accommodated. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/ competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a fixed time schedule, keeping in view the aforesaid stations. Learned vice counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer. 4. Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy as also keeping in view the stations mentioned by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition for his adjustment, within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh