JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner is currently serving as Circle Head Draughtsman (Electrical) and forms part of Drawing Cadre in the Respondent-State Electricity Board. i) Petitioner instituted Tek Singh Vs. Executive Director (Pers.) Vidyut Bhawan, H.P. & Ors , [CWP No. 2418/2025 decided on 22.03.2025] . against office order dated 06.02.2025 whereby he was transferred from the office of SE (D) P/House Elect. HPSEBL Sundernagar to SE (OP) Circle, Una. The grounds for assailing the aforesaid order were that:- Transfer had been made after 11 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 atSundernagar 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 passed 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 17.02.2025, 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. 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 Circle Head Draughtsman 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 in the office of Chief Engineer (OP), Mandi Zone, HPSEBL Mandi where the post of CHDM is lying vacant as incumbent posted here has been promoted vide office order dated 22.03.2025.” 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 Una 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) The HPSEBL-Board initiated the process of re- organization/restructuring/rationalization of staff strength/posts in its existing Units to reduce the employee cost. 4(i)(b) As a consequence, in the first phase, the respondent- Board, proposed for restructuring the Civil Wing. Proposal in this regard was placed before the Whole Time Directors of the HPSEB Ltd. for consideration. Pursuant to the approval given by the competent authority, Board issued orders for abolishing 286 posts under the Civil Wing. 4(i)(b) As a consequence, in the first phase, the respondent- Board, proposed for restructuring the Civil Wing. Proposal in this regard was placed before the Whole Time Directors of the HPSEB Ltd. for consideration. Pursuant to the approval given by the competent authority, Board issued orders for abolishing 286 posts under the Civil Wing. A High Power Committee was also constituted on 13.12.2024 rationalizing the existing yardsticks and staff norms for several offices. 4(i)(c) In response to the directives, the CE (Gen.) submitted a report, identifying 589 posts of various categories as surplus. Additional proposal was submitted for transfer of 135 surplus incumbents from the Generation Wing to the Units in need within HPSEB Ltd. Thus, 589 posts across various offices/Units under the Generation Wing have been declared surplus and transferred to the surplus pool of the Board Secretariat, where they are to remain in abeyance. 4(i)(d) The Board has further emphasized that the process of rationalization has been initiated aimed to reduce the employee cost so that electricity tariff also gets reduced and consumer gets electric supply on low prices. 4(i)(e) In the aforesaid process, office order was issued on 06.02.2025, wherein the petitioner was also transferred from Sundernagar to Una. 4(ii) The respondent/Board has justified transfer of the petitioner from Sundernagar on the ground that the petitioner was posted in the office of Superintendent Engineer (Design) Power House (Elect.) at Sundernagar, which in the process of rationalization has merged with Procurement Engineering and Contract Cell under Chief Engineer (General). Consequently all the three posts of Circle Head Draughtsman sanctioned in the above said office have since been abolished. It is for this reason, the incumbents working there including the petitioner had been transferred to the surplus created in the Board Secretariat from where they are being considered for further posting/deployment as per the requirement in other Units/Offices. In this process, the petitioner, who was working as Central Head Draughtsman at Sundernagar was adjusted in the office of S.E. (Op) Circle Una on 06.02.2025 against a vacant post. 4(iii) In my considered perception, in view of sound reasons given in the impugned order as extracted in paras 4(i) & 4(ii) above, transfer of the petitioner under order dated 06.02.2025 from Sundernagar was justified even though he had completed short tenure of 11 months over there. 4(iii) In my considered perception, in view of sound reasons given in the impugned order as extracted in paras 4(i) & 4(ii) above, transfer of the petitioner under order dated 06.02.2025 from Sundernagar was justified even though he had completed short tenure of 11 months over there. 4(iv) It appears from the record that pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Tek Singh’s 2 case, petitioner on 12.03.2025 furnished his representation for his adjustment in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone against an anticipated promotion of the present incumbent over there. However, subsequently, the petitioner furnished a fresh representation to the respondent-Board on 18.03.2025 that he was ready and willing for his adjustment in the office of Superintendent Engineer (ES) Circle HPSEB Ltd. Matansidh (Hamirpur) against the vacancy likely to be caused by the retirement of one Sh. Parshotam Lal (CHDM) on 31.03.2025. The respondent-Board accordingly set out to consider petitioner’s representation dated 18.03.2025 wherein he had requested for his adjustment at Matansidh (Hamirpur). On examination of the matter, the competent authority of the respondents noticed that one other CHDM namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar, who had also been transferred in the similar manner as the petitioner and who had also instituted Rajesh Kumar Vs. HPSEB Limited & Anr. , [CWP No. 2417/2025 decided on 22.03.2025] seeking adjustment in the same manner as the present petitioner, had sought adjustment at Matansidh (Hamirpur). Respondent-Board then considered the fact that petitioner had longer service tenure than Sh. Rajesh Kumar; Petitioner is set to retire in the year 2028, whereas Sh. Rajesh Kumar is to retire in the year 2026. Accordingly, Sh. Rajesh Kumar was posted at Matansidh (Hamirpur) in compliance to the direction issued on 11.03.2025 in CWP No. 2417/2025. I find the aforesaid reasons convincing for not accepting petitioner’s representation for his adjustment at Matansidh (Hamirpur) 4(v) During the course of hearing of this writ petition on 26.03.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner can be adjusted in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone, whereafter learned counsel for the respondent was directed to have instructions in the matter. In terms of instructions placed on record by the respondents:- Rationalization process is also underway in the Operation Wing of HPSEBL pursuant to the orders/directions of HPERC; The requirement of staff in the Operation of Wing is being re-assessed; Petitioner belongs to Drawing Cadre; The Drawing Cadre staff is also being reduced and considered for abolishment under the process of rationalization as only need based posts would be considered and maintained keeping in view the employer’s right to re-organize its business and man-power requirement keeping in view the administrative exigency & public interest; Therefore, it is not feasible to post not just the petitioner but any other CHDM in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone at present. In my considered view, the above reasons assigned by the respondent-Board for not accepting petitioner's representation are based upon sound administrative practice and non-discriminatory. 5. For the foregoing reasons, it has to be held that the respondent-Board has amply justified for not adjusting the petitioner either at Matansidh (Hamirpur) or in the office of Chief Engineer (OP) Mandi Zone. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned transfer order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.