Decided On: October 12 vs Himachal Pradesh State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16227 HP

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                   CWP No. 6061 of 2023
                                           Decided on: October 12, 2023
    ________________________________________________________
    Kuldeep Singh                                       ........... Petitioner




                                                                                .
                                       Versus





    Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another
                                                         .... Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram:





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate.

    For the respondents     :     Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.





    ________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 26.8.2023

(Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner, who is an Inspector, has been

ordered to be transferred from Bilaspur Unit to Rekong Peo Unit in

public interest, petitioner has approached this court in the instant

proceeding praying therein to set aside order dated 26.8.2023.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted

in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur,

learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned transfer order

has been effected on the basis of a DO Note issued by political person.

Besides above, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner is due to retire within a period of two years, as such,

he ought not have been disturbed from the present place of posting.

3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

respondent Corporation has filed reply, wherein, it has been stated that

the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Bilaspur to

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

Rekong Peo on his promotion. While making this court peruse record,

Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

impugned transfer order has not been issued on account of political

.

considerations rather file has been cleared by Hon'ble Deputy Chief

Minister, who is otherwise Minister-in-Charge of the Corporation.

Besides this, he submits that earlier the petitioner was promoted as

Inspector on 25.8.2022 and posted at Keyong but instead of joining at

said place, he obtained UO Note dated 3.9.2022, as such, being a

beneficiary of DO Note, petitioner is estopped from raising the ground

of DO Note in the instant petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record, this court finds that the petitioner has been working in Bilaspur

for more than five years, coupled with the fact that he has been

transferred from Bilaspur to Rekong Peon, on promotion as such,

there appears to be no justification for this court to interfere in the

matter.

5. Though it came to be argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the transfer has been effected on the basis of political

considerations, but mere signing of document by the Minister in charge

by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a 'political consideration'

because he/she being in charge of the Department/Corporation can

order transfer of an employee in administrative exigency and public

interest. Though, for the reason stated herein above, there appears to

be no justification for this court to interfere in the impugned order, but

having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on

31.8.2025, this court disposes of the present petition by reserving

liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority,

praying therein for his adjustment at a suitable place, within a week

from today, which in turn shall be decided by competent authority,

.

within two weeks, strictly in terms of transfer policy applicable to the

Corporation, wherein there must be a provision for accommodating an

employee, who is due to retire within two years Needless to say,

authority concerned, while deciding the representation, shall afford

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order

thereafter. Till the time, representation, if filed within one week from

The

petition stands

today, is decided by competent authority, he shall not be compelled to

join at the transferred place.

                                        disposed   of   alongwith     all   pending

    applications.

                                                        (Sandeep Sharma)
                                                             Judge


      October 12, 2023
          Vikrant