2025:HHC:6036 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3525 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sahil Sandal ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Assistant Engineer at Sawra Kuddu, HEP, HPPCL, Hatkoti, District Shimla, which is a non-family station as provided in the circular (Annexure P- 3), has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6), whereby he has sought transfer to one of the stations of his choice on account of completion of his tenure and adverse family circumstances. 2. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that petitioner herein has been working as Assistant Engineer at Sawra Kuddu, HEP, HPPCL, Hatkoti, District Shimla. As per circular No.1/19 (Annexure P-3), aforesaid station is considered as non-family station. If the aforesaid circular is read in its entirety, it clearly provides for transfer of an employee working in non-family station to a family station, after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting i.e. five years. Though in the case at hand, petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting i.e. five years, but yet prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not being considered and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Digvijay Singh Kanwar, Advocate. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Digvijay Singh Kanwar, Advocate, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 2 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon taking note of Transfer Policy/Circular. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3