IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 272 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.3.2009 Devinder Gaur … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar vice Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): Mr. Yogesh Kumar appearing vice Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate, states that he adopts the reply filed by the State. No rejoinder is sought to be filed. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the transfer order dated 19.1.2009, whereby he has been transferred from Regional Hospital Kullu to BMO’s Office Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. and respondent No. 3 who was under transfer to Shahpur, has been adjusted against the petitioner at Kullu. The main contention of Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj is that the transfer order itself clearly shows that it 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 has been passed with a view to adjust respondent No. 3 and it has not been issued in the public interest. We are unable to accept this argument. It is no doubt true that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered apparently on account of some representation made by respondent No. 3 against her transfer to Shapur. Every employee has a right to make such representation and if the employer accepts such representation, it is but natural that some other employee is likely to be effected. The petitioner has by now completed two years and four months stay at Regional Hospital Kullu. The reply of the State shows that ever since his entry in Government service in the year 1983, the petitioner has remained in or around Kullu for the last 26 years except for short span, which he spent in the neighbouring District of Mandi. A person like the petitioner who has managed to stay at one place for such a long period can have no grievance if he is transferred outside Kullu. There are no allegations of malafide in the petition. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly. CMP No. 456 of 2009: In view of the orders passed in the main petition, this application has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 25, 2009 Judge (BSS) 3