Arun Sen Vs the Executive Director (Personnel) and Another

i) Petitioner instituted Arun Sen Vs. HPSEB Ltd & Others² . against office order dated 06.02.2025 whereby he was transferred from the office of Chief Engineer (Gen.) HPSEBL Sundernagar to office of Chief Engineer (Comm.) HPSEBL Shimla. The grounds for assailing the aforesaid order were that:- Transfer had been made after 6 months of petitioner’s stay at the current place of posting ; Petitioner had

¶13

not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at

¶14

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

¶15

2CWP No. 2270/2025 decided on 22.03.2025

¶16

2

¶17

Sundernagar ; The incumbents having longer stay at Sundernagar had been retained, whereas the petitioner had been transferred.

¶18

ii) The Board’s stand in the aforesaid writ petition was that the impugned order had been issued on account of rationalization of posts undertaken by the Board. Not just the petitioner, but several other incumbents had also been transferred in the process of rationalization.

¶19

iii) Vide interim order dated 10.02.2025, operation of impugned order was stayed qua the petitioner. On 11.03.2025, when the matter was next taken up, learned counsel for the respondentBoard submitted that the Board was willing to consider the case of petitioner for his adjustment as per common instructions dated 06.03.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to furnish his representation to the Board, which was to be decided by the Board within the time-line indicated in the order.

¶20

iv) The respondent-Board considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Taking note of these developments, the writ petition was closed on 22.03.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to him for the redressal of his surviving grievances.

¶21

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has now instituted this writ petition assailing the rejection order passed by

¶22

3

¶23

the respondent-Board on 21.03.2025. The substantive relief prayed

¶24

for by the petitioner reads as under:-

¶25

“a. That writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned transfer order dated 06-02-2025 and representation rejection order dated 21.03.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua petitioner.

¶26

b. That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work, as a Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Chief Engineer Generation, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP.

¶27

c. That direction may kindly be issued to consider petitioner's case for adjustment, for stations mentioned in para 7&8 of the writ petition in time bound, which are getting vacant shortly due to retirement on 31.05.2025.”

¶28

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

¶29

the case file.

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has also

¶31

placed on record instructions dated 26.03.2025. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up today for consideration.

¶32

4. Consideration.

¶33

4(i) Respondent Board’s main plank for justifying transfer of

¶34

the petitioner from Sundernagar to Shimla is the ‘rationalization’ process being undertaken by it.

¶35

The respondent-Board in the impugned order has given

¶36

following justification for rationalization;-

¶37

4

¶38

(a) The Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) in its tariff orders has issued directives to the Board for curtailment of the employees as the employees cost in the respondent-Board is stated to be one of the highest in the country.

¶39

(b) The HPERC has identified some of the offices/units of the Board that have become redundant in view of technological advancements and/or the services which can be easily outsourced. The HPERC has pointed out that many of Board’s offices namely Design, PLCC, M&T, P&T, S&I etc. have become redundant and directed the Board to come up with a road map for reducing its high employee cost.

¶40

4(i)(a) The HPSEBL-Board initiated the process of reorganization/restructuring/rationalization of staff strength/posts in its existing Units to reduce the employee cost.

¶41

4(i)(b) As a consequence, in the first phase, the respondentBoard, proposed for restructuring the Civil Wing. Proposal in this regard was placed before the Whole Time Directors of the HPSEB Ltd. for consideration.

¶42

Pursuant to the approval given by the competent authority, Board issued orders for abolishing 286 posts under the Civil Wing. A High Power Committee was also constituted on

¶43

5

¶44

13.12.2024 rationalizing the existing yardsticks and staff norms for several offices.

¶45

4(i)(c) In response to the directives, the CE (Gen.) submitted a report, identifying 589 posts of various categories as surplus. Additional proposal was submitted for transfer of 135 surplus incumbents from the Generation Wing to the Units in need within HPSEB Ltd. Thus, 589 posts across various offices/Units under the Generation Wing have been declared surplus and transferred to the surplus pool of the Board Secretariat, where they are to remain in abeyance.

¶46

4(i)(d) The Board has further emphasized that the process of rationalization has been initiated aimed to reduce the employee cost so that electricity tariff also gets reduced and consumer gets electric supply on low prices.

¶47

4(i)(e) In the aforesaid process, office order was issued on 06.02.2025, wherein the petitioner was also transferred from Sundernagar to Shimla.

¶48

4(ii) The respondent/Board has justified transfer of the petitioner from Sundernagar on the ground that the petitioner was posted as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Chief Engineer (Gen.) HPSEBL at Sundernagar. There were 6 sanctioned posts of Superintendent Grade-II in the aforesaid office. In the process of rationalization, two posts of Superintendent Grade-II have since been

¶49

6

¶50

abolished and placed in the common pool in the Board Secretariat. The petitioner was junior-most in the said office, having longest remaining tenure for superannuation and for this reason, he was considered for posting in the office of Chief Engineer (Comm), HPSEBL Shimla, where his services were required in the larger interest. It is in this process, the petitioner, who was working as Superintendent Grade-II at Sundernagar was adjusted and transferred in the office of Chief Engineer (Comm) HPSEBL Shimla on 06.02.2025.

¶51

4(iii) In my considered perception, in view of sound reasons given in the impugned order as extracted in paras 4(i) & 4(ii) above, transfer of the petitioner under order dated 06.02.2025 from Sundernagar was justified even though he had completed short tenure of 6 months over there.

¶52

4(iv) It appears from the record that pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Arun Sen’s² case, petitioner on 12.03.2025 furnished his representation for his adjustment in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone at Mandi against an anticipated vacancy, which was likely to be caused on 01.04.2025 on the retirement of the existing incumbent on 31.03.2025. The respondent-Board accordingly set out to consider petitioner’s representation dated 12.03.2025.

¶53

7

¶54

On examination of the matter, the competent authority of the respondents noticed that the petitioner is having longer service span in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II inasmuch as he is to retire in the year 2030. Accordingly, it was decided by the competent authority/employer that petitioner’s services can be utilized in the office of CE (Comm) at Shimla in administrative exigencies and in public interest, where the work was also available. The service of Superintendent Grade-II are more needed in the office of CE (Comm) at Shimla than at (Op) Wing Mandi. In fact, the impugned order as well as the instructions placed on record by the respondents on 27.03.2025 also state that the process of rationalization is also required to be carried out for the offices falling under the Operation Wing at Mandi. Taking into consideration all these factors, it has not been considered prudent for the time being to post any Superintendent Grade-II in the office of CE (OP) Mandi Zone at Mandi.

¶55

I find the aforesaid reasons convincing for not accepting petitioner’s representation for his adjustment in the office of CE (Op) Mandi Zone at Mandi.

¶56

4(v) Petitioner’s prayer for his adjustment against two vacancies that are likely to arise in June 2025 in the office of Chief Engineer (Gen.) HPSEBL Sundernagar has also been aptly dealt with by the respondents in their instructions memo dated 26.03.2025,

¶57

8

¶58

which state that: (i) Process of rationalization is currently underway in General Wing as well (ii) Under the General wing, staff is more required at the Power Houses than in the offices (iii) In view of (i) & (ii), for vacancies that will arise in June, 2025, petitioner’s case, at present cannot be considered for adjustment in the office of Chief Engineer (Gen.) HPSEBL Sundernagar.

¶59

In my considered view, the above reasons assigned by the respondent-Board for not accepting petitioner's representation are based upon sound administrative practice and non-discriminatory.

¶60

5. For the foregoing reasons, it has to be held that the respondent-Board has amply justified for not adjusting the petitioner either in the office of Chief Engineer (Gen.) HPSEBL Sundernagar or in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone at Mandi. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned transfer order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶61

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶62

2^nd April, 2025(rohit)

Arun Sen v. the Executive Director (Personnel) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Sen v. the Executive Director (Personnel) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Tulsi Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Janak Rani Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sudhi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chand Vs the Hpsfc and Others