The court upheld the transfer of the petitioner based on the Board's rationalization process, affirming the administrative discretion in staffing decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is currently serving as Superintendent Grade-II and forms part of Ministerial Cadre (Gen.) in the Respondent-State Electricity Board.

i) Petitioner instituted Arun Sen Vs. HPSEB Ltd & Others, [CWP No. 2270/2025 decided on 22.03.2025]. 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 not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at Sundernagar; The incumbents having longer stay at Sundernagar had been retained, whereas the petitioner had been transferred.

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.

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 respondent- Board 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.

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.

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has now instituted this writ petition assailing the rejection order passed by the respondent-Board on 21.03.2025. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner reads as under:-

“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.

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.

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.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has also 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.

4. Consideration.

4(i) Respondent Board’s main plank for justifying transfer of the petitioner from Sundernagar to Shimla is the ‘rationalization’process being undertaken by it.

The respondent-Board in the impugned order has given following justification for rationalization;-

(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.

(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.

4(i)(a) Th