DEEPAK KUMAR v. THE HPSEBL AND ANOTHER
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2025-10-16. DEEPAK KUMAR v. THE HPSEBL AND ANOTHER. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16331 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16. 10. 2025 _______________________________________________________ Deepak Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as T-Mate at Electrical Sub-Division, Sach under Electrical Division Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 20. 07.
2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations of his choice on account of the fact that he has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area. 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 respondents, who are otherwise represented by Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate states that the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? petitioner has not completed the normal tenure of posting at present place of posting because prior to his regularization on 08. 05. 2023, he was working on contract basis. 3. Careful perusal of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which has been adopted by the respondent-Electricity Board, nowhere suggest distinction, if any, between the employee working on contract or regular basis.
Once it is not in dispute that petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area i. e. two winter and three summers, coupled with the fact that transfer policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area after his/her having completed normal tenure of posting, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20. 07. 2025 (Annexure P-1)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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16,2025 (shankar)
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.