IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1970 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 3 , 2011 Pawan Lata Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner who was working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kalashan, Development Block Karsog (Mandi) was transferred to Gram Panchayat Bhanthal, Development Block Karsog (Mandi), vide order dated 10.3.2011. According to her she informed the Block Development Officer about her joining in terms of letter dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure P-3). Surprisingly on 30.3.2011 the Director, Rural Development Department, Himachal Pradesh, Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 issued office order dated 30.3.2011 cancelling the order dated 10.3.2011. This order has been assailed by the petitioner. 2. On 6.4.2011 this Court had directed the third respondent to produce the record and file an affidavit disclosing as to how the petitioner was permitted to join at Gram Panchayat, Bhanthal, without relieving the fourth respondent. Affidavit of the Block Development Officer, Karsog, sufficiently explains the circumstances under which the joining of the petitioner was permitted in the office of the Gram Panchayat, Bhanthal. 3. State has not chosen to file reply. Also from the impugned order dated 30.3.2011 it is evident that the order cancelling the transfer is not in public interest. Apparently there is no justification for cancelling the order of transfer just within a period of twenty days. According to the private respondent the order was cancelled only on his asking as he had not completed his normal tenure at Bhanthal. This is all the more reason for quashing the order. It is expected of the authorities to have carefully applied their mind to all the attending circumstances before issuing the order of transfer. The orders cannot be cancelled on the mere asking of the employees without any justifiable cause or reason. 4. Consequently order dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure P-4) is quashed. However it shall be open for the private respondent to approach the Director, Rural Development Department, Himachal Pradesh clearly pointing out his grievance within a period of one week from today. The Director shall consider the same in 3 accordance with law and take a decision thereupon within a period of two weeks from the receipt of such representation. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 3 , 2011 (PK)