IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.8671/2011-H. Decided on: December 22,2011. Surender Kumar, son of Shri Amar Singh, Resident of Village Chhaner, Post Office Chamyana, Tehsil Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, H.P. Presently posted as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Karot, District Hamirpur, H.P. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla–2. 2. Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. 3. Block Development Officer, Development Block Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, H.P. 4. Shri Kuldip Kumar Sharma, son of (not known to the petitioner), Secretary Gram Panchayat Dera, District Hamirpur, H.P. …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Surender Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his transfer order vide Annexure P- 2, dated 23rd September, 2011. The petitioner, who was working as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis, has been transferred vide the impugned order Annexure P-2. 2. My attention has been drawn to the Office Memorandum (Annexure P-3), issued on 13th August, 2009, in which it is envisaged that the contractual 2 employees appointed in Government Departments can only be transferred after the completion of five years tenure at one place of posting. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3437 of 2010, titled Anuradha Garg versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.6.2010, relevant portion of which reads thus: “5.It is clear from the office memorandum extracted above that the contract employees become eligible to make a request for transfer on completion of five years tenure at the present place of posting. Equally, the department on administrative grounds is entitled to transfer a contract employee after five years of tenure at one place. But the contract employees are not entitled for transfer as of right, so as to disturb the regularly appointed employees, even when the regularly appointed employee has completed the normal tenure. It is squarely clear from the office memorandum extracted above that the eligibility of a contract employee for transfer will depend on two conditions; (i) the same will be considered only on need basis and (ii); the same will be done only on administrative grounds. These are to be read and understood and applied qua the contract employees and not qua a regular employee to be transferred so as to accommodate a contract employee. However, it needs to be also clarified that in case a regularly appointed employee has to be transferred on any administrative grounds, and in case there is a vacancy available on account of such transfer, it would certainly be open to the contract employee to point out such vacancy remaining unfilled and in that situation that request has to be considered. In other words, the 3 norms do not entitle a contract employee to make a request for transfer by transferring a regular employee. Therefore, it is made clear that the eligibility of the contract employee to request for transfer and consideration of that request will depend only on availability of the vacancy……………………”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.3897 of 2011, titled Chander Parkash versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11.10.2011. 4. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed to this extent that respondent No.2/competent authority shall examine the matter of the petitioner in light of the policy framed by the Government (Annexure P-3) and also the judgments referred to above and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner will file a representation before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a copy of this judgment and copies of the judgments referred to above and respondent No.2/competent authority will pass appropriate orders thereon within another two months. Till the orders, as above, are passed, the petitioner shall continue to work at his present place of posting. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 22, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.