Balwant Singh vs H.P.S.E.B.L. & Ors.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of transfer order dated 25.03.2026, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from Electrical Sub Division Bhaderwar under Electrical Division HPSEBL Sarkaghat, to Electrical Sub Division, HPSEBL, Keylong.

Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, learned Counsel for the respondents-Board has handed over an office order passed by the respondent-Authority dated 08.05.2026, in terms whereof, the representation of the petitioner, which was pending with the Authority for consideration to be transferred to some other station, has been rejected.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner stands transferred to Keylong not because of any administrative exigency or public interest but as a result of a request generated by the private respondent in terms of Annexure P-2 appended with the writ petition.

Ms. Parul Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the documents appended with the petition, including Annexure P-2 and submitted that the documents appended therewith demonstrate that the private respondent requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister to undertake certain transfers, which included the transfer of the petitioner from his present place of posting to Keylong or Shimla. As a result thereof, respondent-Board passed the impugned transfer order, transferring the petitioner from his present place of posting to Keylong. She submitted that above demonstrates that the impugned transfer order was not passed by the respondent-Board by applying its independent mind as to whether the petitioner deserved to be transferred from his present place of posting to Keylong or not but it simply obliged the private respondent by accepting his demand of the transfer of the petitioner to a Tribal area.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting and his transfer to Keylong was due to administrative exigency. He has also submitted that irrespective of the fact that as to what was the reason to initiate the transfer, fact of the matter is that the petitioner having completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, has no inherent right to continue to serve at the said station. He further submitted that the transfer has been effected by following the process, as is in vogue, by the respondent-Board and therefore, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the Authority on 08.05.2026 as well as the documents appended with the petition.

The petitioner in terms of the impugned transfer order stands transferred from Electrical Sub Division Bhaderwar under Electrical Division HPSEBL Sarkaghat to Electrical Sub Division, HPSEBL, Keylong.

Annexure P-2 demonstrates that the private respondent sought transfer of the petitioner from Bhaderwar to Keylong or Shimla.

On a query put to learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, as to who is the private respondent, the Court was informed that he is a politician, who was unsuccessful in the last Assembly Elections from Sarkaghat, Mandi.

In light of the fact that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, obviously, he does not has any right to stay at the said station because he is holding a State Cadre post and the respondent is at liberty to order the transfer of the petitioner. However, this exercise has to be undertaken by the Board on account of some administrative exigency or in public interest and not on the dictates of the busy body.

In the present case, neither of these two contingencies are met for the reason that the transfer order primarily has been passed to satisfy the demand of the private respondent of shifting the petitioner from his present place of posting. Thus, as the transfer of the petitioner is an act of colourable exercise of power, not effectuated on account of any administrative exigency or public interest, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Respondent-Board independently has to assess where its employees are to be posted and it is not for the outsiders to influence the decision of the Board, as has been done in the present case.

Therefore, in the light of above discussion, as the impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), is quashed and set aside.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, the cancellation of the transfer order shall not come in the way of the Authority to transfer the petitioner from the present place of posting, if it so intends. However, the issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition qua having old parents and a minor son be taken into consideration and the petitioner should not be transferred to a station, which prima facie gives a feeling that the same is again punitive in nature.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.