Disposed¶19

Pankaj Thakur v. Hpsebl and Others

Service Law – Transfer

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jun 2025CWP/9351/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.9351 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 5.6.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. Keywords: transfer policy; normal tenure of posting; vicinity posting 20-25 kms; adverse family circumstances; representation to competent authority; adjustment at convenient station; abeyance of transfer order; HPSEBL; JE (Electrical); Pankaj Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of alongwith pending application(s): transfer order upheld but kept in abeyance qua the petitioner until his representation, to be filed within two days for adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of adverse family circumstances, is decided by the competent authority within one week in terms of the transfer policy. ¶19

Pankaj Thakur Vs Hpsebl and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned transfer order is upheld: since the petitioner remained posted within the vicinity of 20-25 kms for the last three years, there is no justification for the Court to interfere with the transfer order.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the adverse family circumstances apprised during proceedings, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a representation within two days to the competent authority for adjustment at a convenient station, to be decided within one week taking note of the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances.

¶17

Key takeaways

Till the representation is decided by the competent authority, the impugned transfer order shall be kept in abeyance qua the petitioner only.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Transfer – Petitioner, JE (Electrical) at Electrical Sub-Division Dharampur (HPSEBL), challenged transfer order dated 2.6.2025 shifting him to Electrical Sub-division Kunihar before completion of three years at the station, alleging violation of transfer policy – Held, transfer order upheld, as petitioner had remained posted within the vicinity of 20-25 kms for the last three years, leaving no justification for interference – However, noting adverse family circumstances, liberty granted to file representation within two days to the competent authority for adjustment at a convenient station; authority to decide within one week taking note of the transfer policy, which enables transfer on ground of adverse family circumstances – Impugned transfer order to remain in abeyance qua petitioner until representation decided – Petition disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.9351 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Thakur

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocates.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate.

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JE (Electrical) at Electrical Sub-Division Dharampur under Electrical Divisio,. Parwanoo, is aggrieved of order dated 2.6.2025 (Annexure P- 2), whereby he has been transferred from aforesaid station to Electrical Sub-division Kunihar under Electrical Division HPSEBL Arki, against vacancy.

¶13

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy and as such, deserves to be

¶14

¶15

quashed and set aside. Mr. Chauhan, states that petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of posting and as such, he could not have been transferred.

¶16

3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Thakur, states that though petitioner may not have completed three years at Electrical Sub Division Dharampur, but prior to his posting at Dharampur, he was posted at Solan, which is at a distance of 20 kms from Solan. He states that since petitioner has remained in the vicinity of present place of posting for more than three years, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while passing impugned transfer order.

¶17

4. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner remained posted within the vicinity of 20-25kms for the last three years, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the adverse family circumstances, as were apprised to this court during proceedings of the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file representation within two days to the competent authority for his adjustment at convenient station, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within one week taking note of the transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek

¶18

¶19

transfer on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority, impugned transferred order shall be kept in abeyance qua the petitioner only. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.

¶20

June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Pankaj Thakur v. Hpsebl and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Thakur v. 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

Naryan Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nishant Nadda Vs State of Hp and Others

Usha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Tek Chand Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pushp Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs the UOI and Others