IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9351 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JE (Electrical) at Electrical Sub-Division Dharampur under Electrical Divisio,. Parwanoo, is aggrieved of order dated 2.6.2025 (Annexure P- 2), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid station to Electrical Sub-division Kunihar under Electrical Division HPSEBL Arki, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy and as such, deserves to be - 2 - quashed and set aside. Mr. Chauhan, states that petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of posting and as such, he could not have been transferred. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Thakur, states that though petitioner may not have completed three years at Electrical Sub Division Dharampur, but prior to his posting at Dharampur, he was posted at Solan, which is at a distance of 20 kms from Solan. He states that since petitioner has remained in the vicinity of present place of posting for more than three years, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained posted within the vicinity of 20-25kms for the last three years, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the adverse family circumstances, as were apprised to this court during proceedings of the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file representation within two days to the competent authority for his adjustment at convenient station, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within one week taking note of the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek - 3 - transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, impugned transferred order shall be kept in abeyance qua the petitioner only. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge