CW 10934/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10934/2009 Shyam Lal Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors Date of Order ::: 07/09/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vijay Pathak, for petitioner. Petitioner who is working as Ayurved Nurse/Compounder, was transferred vide order dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure-2) from Kunjela, Karauli to Marwa, Jaipur which was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal and the interim order was passed in his favour in pursuance of which he was allowed to continue work at the place of posting at Karauli. Since, appellant/ petitioner failed to serve notice upon respondent despite various opportunities afforded and his counsel has failed to appear on numerous occasions before the learned Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution and accordingly, stay order was also vacated vide order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure-3). Immediately thereafter, petitioner was relieved vide order dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-4). Petitioner engaged another counsel and filed application for restoration which was rejected by the Tribunal CW 10934/09 //2// on 20.8.2009 (Annexure-6) taking note of past track record of the petitioner/appellant as neither he nor, his counsel appeared before the Tribunal on number of occasions and service was also not affected on respondent and taking note of such situation, the appeal was not restored and accordingly, the restoration application was also rejected on 20.8.2009. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that counsel engaged by the petitioner/appellant had not appeared before the tribunal on numerous occasions which has been noticed by the Tribunal in its order impugned dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure-6). Apart from the application for restoration which was rejected by the Tribunal, this court also examined the case on merits and counsel made submissions in regard to the main order dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure-2) by which the petitioner was transferred and was impugned before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that only two years more left in attaining the age of superannuation and apart from this, the petitioner is not maintaining good health and it is difficult for him to carry out the order dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure- 2) by which he was transferred. CW 10934/09 //3// Suffice it to say that even under the interim order of the Tribunal, the petitioner worked at Karauli for almost four years by now and he cannot claim any right to continue at one particular station. Transfer is an incidence of service which does not affect any of the service condition and so far his ill health and family circumstances are concerned, it is with every government employees and he is not exception to it. But, it is always for the administration to consider such difficulties while taking decision in regard to transfer of the employees in the interest of administration and in exigency of services. This court find no substance in the writ petition interfering with the order impugned Annexure-2 dated 17.11.2005 by which petitioner was transferred. Consequently, the writ petition is without merit and accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make representation, if so advised. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Govind/p3/ 10934CW09-Spt07TrnsDs.doc