CWP No. 599 of 2009. 17.3. 2009 Present: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his main anxiety is that the cadre of the petitioner should not be changed and he may be allowed to remain in the same cadre. The learned Advocate General indicates that the petitioner’s cadre is not being changed. There are 26 posts of Assistant Engineers of PWD cadre in the Rural Development Department and on the administrative ground and public interest the petitioner has been transferred against one of such posts. Therefore, the petitioner’s anxiety that his cadre is being changed does not stand any longer, as no rights of the petitioners are being infringed. He remains in the same cadre, though the cadre posts of P.W.D. Department are in Rural Development Department. The petitioner’s next ground of attack is that he is to retire within one year and few months, therefore, he should not be sent away. The petitioner has been transferred from Sujanpur to Bhawarna, which is in District Kangra, however, it is 58 kilometers from Hamirpur. There is no indication in the writ petition that where the petitioner wants to stay finally after his retirement. As far as the ground of cadre is concerned, the petitioner has no case so as this court can show interference. We further find that the petitioner was working for a long period of 17 years out of his service of 34 years in District Hamirpur. Now he is being transferred only 58 kilometers away. In light of above, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. It is further clarified that dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to approach his appointing authority for further redressal. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), Chief Justice. March 17, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.