Allowed¶11

Vinay Kumar v. the Hpsebl and Others

Service – Transfer

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025CWP/16329/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 16329 of 2025, HP High Court, Justice Sandeep Sharma, 16.10.2025 — Vinay Kumar v. HPSEBL; transfer policy Himachal Pradesh adopted by Electricity Board; no distinction between contract and regular employees; normal tenure in hard/tribal area (two winters, three summers); T-Mate Electrical Division Killar District Chamba; direction to decide representation dated 20.07.2025 within four weeks with opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 20.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) for transfer expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; pending applications disposed of. ¶11

Vinay Kumar Vs the Hpsebl and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 20.07.2025 seeking transfer from his hard/tribal-area station after completion of normal tenure of posting. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has completed the normal tenure of posting and the policy enables an employee to seek transfer from hard area to soft area thereafter, the Court issued a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and adopted by the respondent-Electricity Board nowhere suggests any distinction between an employee working on contract basis and one working on regular basis.

¶11

Key takeaways

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the normal tenure of posting in hard/tribal area, i.e., two winters and three summers.ratio¶11
While deciding the representation in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service – Transfer – Petitioner, a T-Mate of HPSEBL posted at Electrical Division, Killar, District Chamba (hard/tribal area), sought a direction to decide his pending representation dated 20.07.2025 for transfer to a station of his choice on completing normal tenure of posting. Respondents objected that he had served on contract basis before regularization on 08.05.2023 and had therefore not completed normal tenure. HELD: The State transfer policy adopted by the Electricity Board draws no distinction between contract and regular employees; completion of the normal tenure of two winters and three summers in the hard/tribal area was undisputed, entitling the petitioner to seek transfer. Respondents directed to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after hearing the petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16329 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 16.10.2025

¶4

________________________________________________ Vinay Kumar …….P Versus	_______ etitioner
HPSEBL & others … Resp	ondents
________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.	vice Mr.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate.
_____________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):	_______

¶5

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as T-Mate at 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.

¶6

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

¶7

Misra, Advocate. Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate states that the

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶13

October 16,2025 (shankar)

Vinay Kumar v. the Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. the 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

Shiv Dutt Vs Hrtc and Others

Kalpana Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prashant Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reena Rai Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radhika Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. (Unit Rauri) Vs the State of Hp and Others