IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6052 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Mangal Sain. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to change the headquarter of the applicant from Bhasana to Cragnano Section, where the applicant is working for the last ten years. (ii) That the applicant be released all the benefits like capital allowance, Dearness allowance etc. from the year, 1989 to till date with interest.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents, the following stand has been taken in paras 3 and 6(v): “3 In reply to this para it is submitted that perusal of applicant reveals that there is no impugned/specific order against which the applicant is aggrieved. However it is submitted that applicant is working as T/Mate in the respondents Boards since 8th December 1989 in Craignano Section at Bhawana S/Station under Elect. Division No. 1, Shimla-2 in Mashobra Elect. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Sub-Division with head quarter at village Bhawana in the exigency of boards work to maintain the satisfactory power supply to consumers being essential services and he is being paid all the allowances applicable to him as per the order of the Govt. of H.P/Board. The applicant has never discriminated in any manner or in any way by the respondents. Thus the action of replying respondents is perfectly legal bonafide one and consequently legally tenable. 6(v) the contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. However the contents are agreed to the extent that the applicant made a written request dated 1.11.91 for change his head quarter, but due to administrative reason the authorities died not felt it genuine/necessary to shift him to Craignano which is about 14 to 16 kms away from his desired station with in short period of about 2 years which can reflect the transfer policy of the respondent Board.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may point out the same by way of an appropriate representation before the first respondent within one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the first respondent shall decide the representation within another period of three months. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 16th November, 2010 (virender)