IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11509 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mahesh Patyal …….Petitioner Versus Under Secretary (TE), HPSEBL and Anr. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JE (Elect.) at Elect. Sub-Division Pragpur under Elect. Division HPSEBL, Dehra, is aggrieved of order dated 02.06.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Elect. Sub-Division, Tabo under Elect. Division, HPSEBL, Kaza, against vacancy. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arun Kaushal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present station. While making this Court peruse pleadings adduced on record, Mr. Arun Kaushal, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner is not physically well and as such, it is not advisable to send him to hard/tribal area. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. 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 respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Thakur states that since petitioner has already completed more than two years and six months, coupled with the fact that he has never remained posted in hard/tribal area, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while ordering transfer of the petitioner, however, Mr. Thakur fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Though having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed more than two years and six months at present station, coupled with the fact that he has never remained posted in hard/tribal area, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is suffering from some serious liver disease, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already approached competent authority by way of representation dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), this Court, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a 3 period of ten days. 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 thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment at convenient station on medical grounds. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant judgment, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)