IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 3183 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.8.2010 Dalip Singh Chauhan … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate For the respondent No.3: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent No.4: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 31.5.2010 annexure P- 6 whereby he has been ordered to be transferred to Shimla and respondent No.4 Rahul Sewal has been permitted to continue at Nahan may be quashed and set-aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in Sangrah Division as Head Draughtsman, which is stated to be a hard area. He requested that he be transferred to Nahan. His 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 request was acceded to and vide order dated 3rd January, 2009 he was transferred to Nahan. Respondent No.3 Mohamad Akhtar who was working as Draftsman was promoted to the post of Head Draftsman and posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Shimla Division vide order dated 2.9.2009. Both the petitioner and respondent No.3 joined at their respective place of posting. It, however, appears that respondent No.3 was not satisfied with his posting at Shimla and he made a representation for his transfer and vide order Annexure P-5 the respondent No.3 was transferred from the office of the Executive Engineer, Shimla to Nahan on his own request. The petitioner was adjusted in Nahan in the office of the Town and Country Planning Department and respondent No.4 Rahul Sewal was transferred from Nahan to Shimla. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.4 also made a representation to the Department that he had served in hard areas for many years and he may be adjusted at Nahan. This request was acceded to and vide annexure P-11 dated 31.5.2010 3 the transfer of respondent No.4 from TCP Nahan to E in C Office at Shimla was cancelled and the petitioner who was under transfer from Nahan Division to TCP Nahan was transferred to the E in C Office at Shimla. 3. Aggrieved by this transfer the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Replies have been filed by all the respondents. 4. The stand of the State is that the transfer has been affected in public interest. The State in its reply has given the place of posting of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 and 4. A perusal of this shows that the petitioner remained posted firstly in Nahan Division for about five years, one year at Shimla another year and half at Solan, then in the hard area of Kaffota. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kangra and remained there for about 10 years at Palampur and Dharamshala. He then came back to Shimla, then to Palampur, then to Dehra and then to Nahan. He worked at Nahan for three years when he was posted to Sangarh, which is a hard area and remained there for almost six 4 years and on his request was posted at Nahan in 2009. 5. Respondent No.4 has also spent time at Bilaspur, Paonta, Rajgarh, Shillai and Pachhad and then at Dhalli for a short period and finally at Nahan since 2006. On the other hand Mohamad Akhtar has spent about two years at Shimla on his initial posting. Except for a period of about four months when he was posted at Chopal, he spent his entire remaining service tenure in Sirmour District. It is true that out of this period he has spent about three years at Kafota, which is a hard area and again three years in Haripurdhar division which is also a hard area. 6. This Court has observed time and again that transfer should be made on administrative grounds in the public interest and should not be cancelled for the mere asking. This is what causes trouble. It is apparent from the facts of this case that when the petitioner requested for transfer he was adjusted at Nahan, when Mohamad Akhtar asked for transfer from Shimla to Nahan he was also 5 adjusted and when Rahul Sewal was posted from Nahan to Shimla and asked for the cancellation of his transfer he was also adjusted. There shall be total break-down of the administrative machinery, if request of the employees are accepted in such a casual manner. It is apparent that the order Annexure P-5 has been passed merely on the asking of Rahul Sewal and not in the public interest. It would also be pertinent to mention that Mohamad Akhtar came to Shimla on promotion. He joined at Shimla and within about one year was transferred back from Shimla to Nahan. Every employee is expected to spend a minimum tenure of three years at one station and if the tenure is not complete a person should not be transferred without compelling reasons. 7. Keeping in view the discussion, the order annexure P-11 is quashed. The Engineer-in-Chief, who has ordered the transfer, shall reconsider the matter afresh. All the three parties may make a representation to him and the Engineer-in-Chief keeping in view the observations made here-in- 6 above and the settled transfer policy shall pass a fresh reasoned order transferring the three employees mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 and 4 may make representation to the Engineer-in-Chief on or before 30th August, 2010 and the Engineer-in-Chief shall take a decision thereupon latest by 15th September, 2010. The petitioner shall be paid his salary due to him on or before 15th September, 2010. Dasti copy. 16th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.