IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2952 of 2008. Date of decision: 4.5.2009 Jagdish Chand …. Petitioner Versus HRTC & another. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Adarsh Sharma, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 20.12.2008 whereby his transfer from Tara Devi Unit to the HRTC Una Unit has been cancelled. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working as Conductor with the HRTC and posted in the HRTC Unit at Una was transferred to HRTC Taradevi Unit after about 26 years. He was transferred to the Taradevi unit in February, 2008. He thereafter, joined at Tara Devi but started making requests that he be transferred back to Una. His request was acceded to and 2 he was transferred back to Una vide order dated 6.12.2008. However, soon thereafter the impugned order was passed and the petitioner was re-transferred to Tara Devi. On notice of this petition being issued, the HRTC filed reply in which it is stated that the petitioner remained posted at Una Unit for about 26 years before his transfer to Taradevi. It has also been mentioned that he did not complete his normal tenure of 3 years at Taradevi Unit. There is a shortage of conductors at Tara Devi and, therefore, his transfer from Taradevi to Una has been cancelled. Transfer is an incidence of service and this Court normally does not interfere in such matters unless it is shown that the action is arbitrary or there is mala fide exercise of power. This Court cannot interfere in the day to day functioning of the administrative authorities. True it is that the petitioner may not have completed normal tenure at Una after his transfer but the fact remains that he has also not completed his normal tenure at Tara Devi. He remained posted at Una for 26 years. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition and, therefore, reject the petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities for 3 consideration of his case for transfer to some place, other than Una. The representation, if any, made by the petitioner to the respondent shall be decided in accordance with law. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge May 5, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge