2025:HHC:1039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13253 of 2024 Decided on: 06.01.2025 Madan Lal … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Vishal Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- a) That the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-7 (Colly) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to perform his duties at the present place, i.e. in the office of respondent No. 6 in the interest of justice and fair play. 2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the fact that in terms of the impugned transfer order, he has been ordered to be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1039 transferred from Chamba to Dharamshala, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is to superannuate within a period of six months and is 60% disabled. In light of the said fact, this Court on 03.01.2025, passed the following order:- “Mr. V.S. Kanwar, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order has been passed by the respondents by ignoring the fact that the petitioner is to superannuate within six months as from the date when the impugned transfer order was issued and further that he is suffering from 60% disability. Learned Counsel for the respondents is directed to have instructions as to why in these peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner cannot be allowed to superannuate from the present place of posting where he is working by virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 20.11.2024. List on 06.01.2025.” Today, response has been filed by the respondent-Board to the writ petition. 3. As already observed by me hereinabove, the grievance of the petitioner is qua his transfer which has been effected without 3 2025:HHC:1039 appreciating the fact that the petitioner is going to superannuate within a period of six months and further without appreciating that the petitioner is 60% disabled. 4. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner is serving as a Foreman (Spl). Though in terms of Annexure P-7, the petitioner is stated to be temporarily deputed in Electrical Division HPSEBL, Chamba, however, this Court is of the considered view that when the respondent-Board already had taken a call to post the petitioner at Chamba by terming the same as ‘temporary deputation’, it would have been in the interest of justice, if the respondent-Board had allowed the petitioner to superannuate from the said station. 5. In fact, a perusal of the reply of the respondent-Board demonstrates that there is no cogent reason spelled out in the same as to what public interest is involved in passing of the impugned transfer order in light of the fact that the petitioner has less than six months to superannuate and further he is 60% disabled. 6. It is apparent and evident that the petitioner wants to retire from Chamba. This Court is of the considered view that at the fag end of the service career of an employee, the endeavour of the employer should be to assist the employee, who has given substantive period of his life in the service of the employer by ensuring that he is comfortably posted at a station from where he 4 2025:HHC:1039 can superannuate comfortably. This is for the reason that close to superannuation, an employee has to make so many arrangements and more so, for an employee like the petitioner, who happens to be Class-III employee, some compassion is required from the employer. 7. Therefore, as this Court is satisfied that as the impugned transfer order is nothing but an act of colourable exercise by the respondents and as there is no cogent reason spelled out in the reply as to why the petitioner could not be allowed to continue at Chamba till his superannuation, more so in light of the fact that he is suffering from 60% disability, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-7 colly.) is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is allowed to continue at Chamba till his superannuation. The writ petition stands disposed of in above reasons so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 06, 2025 (narender)