IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15600 of 2026 Decided on: 08.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vijay Singh …..Petitioner Versus Managing Director, HPSEBL and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 4, which is waived by Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel. Considering the order impugned herein and the nature of the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the appearing respondents. Notice is also not required to be issued to respondent No. 5. The matter has been heard accordingly. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Pursuant to the directions issued in Sunil Kumar vs. HPSEBL & Others,2 the respondents issued an office order on 03.09.2026. In terms of the said office order, respondent No. 5, who was transferred to Thirot Power House Sub-Division, Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, vide order dated 14.07.2026, was adjusted at Electrical Sub-Division, Barsar, and the present petitioner, who had completed his normal tenure at Electrical Sub-Division, Barsar, was transferred to Thirot Power House Sub-Division, Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already completed his requisite tenure in the hard/tribal area of Electrical Section, Akpa, under Electrical Sub- Division, Reckong Peo, where he had served from July 2010 to October 2013, therefore, he could not have been transferred to hard area again under the impugned office order dated 03.09.2026. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at Electrical Sub-Division, Barsar, therefore petitioner's transfer from Sub-Division, Barsar, and respondent No. 5's adjustment at his place cannot be faulted. However, at the same time, petitioner's claim of having already served in hard area and that, under the impugned order, he has been transferred again to 2 CWP No. 14636 of 2026, decided on 24.08.2026, 3 hard area, cannot be ignored as such transfer may not be in consonance with the applicable transfer policy. It appears that the petitioner has preferred a representation on 05.09.2026 (Annexure P-3 colly) to respondent No. 1, seeking redressal of the aforesaid grievance. 3. In the given facts, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide petitioner's representation for his transfer to another station in accordance with law and the applicable transfer policy, within one week from today. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, and he shall be at liberty to avail leave of the kind due. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with any pending application(s). Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 8th September, 2026 Rohit