SURAJ PRAKASH v. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd
CWP/10866/2026 · 2026-07-03
Ajay Mohan Goel
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13966 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13966 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:26363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.10866 of 2026 Decided on: 03.07.2026 Suraj Prakash … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2026, in terms whereof, his representation seeking transfer from his present place of posting has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the Project where the petitioner is serving is in tribal area where currently only 4 Junior Engineers are posted against a sanctioned strength of 12 and further there is a ban imposed by the Department of Personnel on transfers till further orders. It is also mentioned in the order that the Power Corporation Limited has its own Transfer Policy, in terms whereof, regular Executive and Supervisory staff has to serve for a tenure of 3 to 5 years ordinarily and the staff serving on contract basis has to serve ordinarily for a period of 5 years. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:26363
3. The Court has been informed that the petitioner was appointed at his present place of posting in the year 2002, but on contract basis. His services were, thereafter, regularized in the year
2024.
4. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner after his regularization has only completed 2 years of service and in his capacity as a contract employee he was bound to serve in an area for at least 5 years, the grounds, in terms whereof, the request of the petitioner has been rejected, prima facie, cannot be faulted with. However, in light of the fact that the petitioner now has served at the given station for more than 4 years, this petition is disposed of with the direction that once the ban imposed by the Department of Personnel on transfers is lifted, then the case of the petitioner may be re-considered by the Authorities. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge July 03, 2026 (Rishi)