IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19887 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Meena Devi …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Daftri in Electric system Circle, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-2), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground that she 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. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Learned counsel for the respondent states that mere completion of tenure of an employee at particular station does not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 entitle her 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 adopted by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner is a Class-IV employee, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) 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, taking note of the fact that petitioner is a Class-IV employee and it is not possible for her to survive at a place which is far from her native place in a meager salary. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 17, 2025 (shankar)