IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3153 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Himalayan …….Petitioner Versus HPSEB & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Davinder Chauhan Jaita, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through instant petition, petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant, Electrical Division, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Kaza at Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation for transfer from hard area to soft area or one of the stations of his choice in terms of transfer policy. 2. Careful perusal of the averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, reveals that petitioner herein has been working as Senior Assistant at Electrical Division, Kaza for the last 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 seven years, but yet his prayer for transfer is not being considered and as such, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 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. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, which specifically provides for transfer of an employee from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. two winter and three summers Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file 3 appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 22, 2025 (shankar)