IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20491 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The Managing Director HPSEBL … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Sub Station Attendant at 66/22 KV Sub Station, Cragnano (Mashobra), Electrical Division, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Jutogh, Tutikandi, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground that he has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondent, who is otherwise represented by Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that mere completion of tenure of an employee at particular station does not entitle him to seek transfer to other station, rather prerogative in that regard is of the employer to post an employee at particular station as per requirement. 3. True it is that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been further adopted by the respondent-Board provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already worked for more than six years at present place of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 24, 2025 (shankar)