Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7128 (HP)

HPSEBL EMPLOYEES UNION v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/2449/2025 · 2025-02-18

Ranjan Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3044 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No:2449 of 2025 Decided On : 18th February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ...Petitioner Board Limited Employees Union Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Ms. Nisha, Advocate vice Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2- HPSEBL. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Employees Union, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s):- “(i). That the impugned notification Annexure P-10 dated 06.02.2025 issued vide office order No.43 by respondent No.2-Board, may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the consequent actions taken thereupon may also be quashed and set aside; 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:3044 - 2 - (ii). That the respondent No.2-Board may kindly be directed to afford an opportunity of hearing and to have consultations with the representatives of the petitioner-Union before taking any such action in near future.” 2. On instructions of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Surender Sharma, at the very outset states that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case a direction is issued to the Respondent No.2 i.e. Executive Director/Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, to examine the representation dated 17.12.2024 [Annexure P-8] and representation dated 28.01.2025 [Annexure P-9, Colly] [at Page 71], after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner-Union and the representative thereof, wherein the Petitioner-Union has raised a grievance alleging rationalization and declaring posts as surplus and on abolition thereof and resultant transfers. 3. Per contra, Ms. Nisha, Advocate appearing as vice counsel for Mr. Anil Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent-Board states that in case, the 2025:HHC:3044 - 3 - the representation dated 17.12.2024 [Annexure P-8] and representation dated 28.01.2025 [Annexure P-9, Colly] are pending the same shall be examined in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, Learned State Counsel, states that since the representation dated 17.12.2024 [Annexure P-8] and representation dated 28.01.2025 [Annexure P-9, Colly], have been addressed to the Respondent No.2-Board, the prayer being innocuous may be considered by this Court. 5. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners on instructions and without adverting to the merits of the case whatsoever, this Court disposes of the instant petition with the following directions:- (i). Respondent No.2-Executive Director (Personnel), Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, is directed to examine the representation(s) dated 17.12.2024 [Annexure P-8] and dated 28.01.2025 [Annexure P-9, Colly], in accordance with law after affording a 2025:HHC:3044 - 4 - personal hearing the Petitioner-Union or representative thereof expeditiously and not later than 31.03.2025; (ii). Needless to say that, in case, respondents No.2, feels in peculiar facts of this case to refer the matter to State Government, in that event the Respondents No.1 & 2 shall examine and decide the representations in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner or their representatives, on or before 31.03.2025; (iii). Petitioner is permitted to make additional representation, within one week hereinafter, which shall also be considered/examined in accordance with law, as in directions (i) & (ii) supra; (iv). Needless to say that all questions are left open and this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter whatsoever.” In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of so as to pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) February 18, 2025 Vacation Judge (Shivender)