IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12748/2025 Decided on: 06.08.2025 Harish Kumar …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The petitioner is serving as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the respondents-Electricity Board. He has taken exception to office order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) that transfers him from Electrical Sub Division No-II Mandi under Electrical Division, HPSEBL 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Mandi to Electrical Sub Division Balichowki under Electrical Division HPSEBL,Thalout against vacancy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has completed almost five years at his present place of posting, but his son presently aged around 20 years, is 90% physically disabled and wholly dependent upon him. It has also been submitted that the impugned office order has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note. 5. Office Memorandum containing Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees was issued by the respondents-State on 10.07.2013. Vide office memorandum dated 17.09.2015, Clause 5.6 was inserted in the aforesaid Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013, whereby concessions were granted to employees having differently abled dependents. Clause 5.6 reads as under: - “Sub-para 5.6: Concession to officials having differently abled dependents: The Government employee who has disabled child may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints, as far as possible.” Respondents-Board being employer can though transfer the employee in administrative exigency but at the same time, it cannot be oblivious to special concerns of the petitioner being father of a specially abled child, who is 90% physically disabled. It appears 3 that respondents were not aware of this fact while ordering petitioner’s transfer. Respondents need to have a re-look in the matter of transfer of the petitioner. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today for cancellation of the impugned transfer order and/or his suitable adjustment, who in turn, shall consider and decide the same within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law inter-alia keeping in view Clause 5.6 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013. Till such time, operation of office order dated 25.07.2025 shall remain stayed. It goes without saying that the protection granted to the petitioner under this order shall be deemed to be vacated in case no representation within the timeline indicated above is preferred by him. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 06th August, 2025(rohit)