IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17000 of 2025 Decided on: 31st October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus HPSEB Limited and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondent No.1, which is waived by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither notice of this petition is required to be issued to respondent No.2 nor reply is required to be called for from the appearing respondent. 2. Petitioner is serving as Computer Operator in the respondent-H.P. State Electricity Board Limited. His grievance is to the office order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 P-1), which transfers him from Electrical Division HPSEBL Lambagaon to IT Cell under the office of Chief Engineer (P&M), HPSEBL Shimla vice respondent No.2. 3. Transfer has been assailed primarily on the ground that the same has been effected only on the basis of a D.O. Note specified in para 6 of the petition. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, therefore, is liable to be transferred from the present station. He also submits that subsequent to the issuance of impugned office order, the petitioner has been relieved and respondent No.2 has since joined at his place. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case his representation dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) in respect of grievances against the transfer order is directed to be decided by respondent No.1/competent authority within a time bound schedule keeping in view the fact that the transfer was effected only on the basis of D.O. Note. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is not averse to this prayer. 4. In view of above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1/competent 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of two weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 31, 2025 Judge Mukesh