Disposed¶23

Rujal Kumar v. the Executive Director (Pers) Hpsebl and Others

Service law – transfer

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jan 2025CWP/145/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: HPSEBL; Pangi Valley Electrical Division; Killar; District Chamba; declared tribal area; hard area; transfer; representation Annexure P-3; time-bound disposal; four weeks; posting at station of choice; CWP No. 145 of 2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel; Rujal Kumar v. Executive Director; decided 04.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) within four weeks; petitioner to be transferred out of the hard area and, if possible, posted at a station of his choice or some nearby areas; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Rujal Kumar Vs the Executive Director (Pers) Hpsebl and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:620

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No. 145 of 2025 Decided on : 04.01.2025

Rujal Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Executive Director and others.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Diksha, Advocate, vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate.

¶13

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶14

Issue notice. Ms. Diksha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

2 . The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in terms of Annexure P-1 in the Pangi Valley Electrical Division, HPSEBL, Killar, District Chamba, which is a declared tribal area.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

¶17

the petitioner has now completed his normal tenure in the tribal

¶18

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

¶20

2025:HHC:620

¶21

area and the respondents have not yet transferred him out of the said area, interest of justice would be served in case, the representation (Annexure P-3), that has been preferred by the petitioner, be decided by the Authority concerned, within a time bound period and if possible, the petitioner be posted at a station, mentioned in the representation.

¶22

In view of the fact that the petitioner has completed

¶23

more than three years and nine months in the hard area, as stated in the representation itself, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Authority concerned, within four weeks from today. The petitioner be transferred out of the hard area and if

¶24

possible, he be posted at a station of his choice or some nearby areas. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶26

January 04, 2025

¶27

(Shivank Thakur)

Rujal Kumar v. the Executive Director (Pers) Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rujal Kumar v. the Executive Director (Pers) Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs the UOI and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Santosh Vs the Hrtc and Another

Lucky Ram and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Salil Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Rajat Mahajan and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others