IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19728/2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025 Mukesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Executive Direction Personnel HPSEBL & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Considering the pleadings, grievance of the petitioner against the impugned transfer and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, reply to the 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. Consequent upon directions issued in Manish Kumar Arya Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Ors.2, the respondents- HPSEB Ltd. passed an order on 09.12.2025, whereby, keeping in view the long service rendered by Sh. Manish Kumar Arya as Senior Executive Engineer at hard & tribal area of Electrical Division, Kaza, District Lahaul & Spiti, he was transferred to Electrical Division, Nahan. To make way for Sh. Manish Kumar Arya, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, the present petitioner, who was serving as Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Nahan, was transferred to the place of posting of Sh. Manish Kumar Arya, or in other words a vice- versa transfer between the two officers was ordered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has no grievance qua adjustment of Sh. Manish Kumar Arya at his place of posting, i.e., Elect. Division Nahan, but in the said process, transfer of the present petitioner to Elect. Division Kaza is not in consonance with law for the reasons: (i) Petitioner has already served for more than requisite tenure at the difficult/sub cadre areas, therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred to tribal/hard area under the impugned order; (ii) Petitioner having crossed the age of 55 years, cannot even otherwise be transferred to hard/tribal area in terms of the applicable transfer policy; Prayer, therefore, was made to quash the impugned order to the extent of petitioner’s transfer to hard/tribal area. 2 CWP No.18233 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.11.2025 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factual submissions made for the petitioner. The facts having been admitted, it would be appropriate & in the interest of justice to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner to join at the transferred station in terms of the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), but to have a re- look on the impugned order, keeping in view the above submissions. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.2/competent authority for his suitable adjustment within one week from today with direction to the said respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a week thereafter. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner. In case, however, the representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated time-line, the limited protection made available to him under this order shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th December, 2025(rohit)