Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21222 (HP)

DAULAT RAM v. THE SECRETARY (HPSEBL) AND OTHERS

CWP/11993/2025 · 2025-07-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11993 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Doulat Ram …….Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant at Pangi Valley Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Kumar, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered expeditiously. 3. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been further adopted by respondent-Electricity Board, enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure i.e. two winters and three summers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 25, 2025 (Sunil)