IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4495 of 2011, with CWP No. 5052 of 2011. Decided on : 25.7.2011 ________________________________________________ CWP No. 4495 of 2011 Manohar Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others… Respondents. CWP No. 5052 of 2011 Mulkh Raj … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others… Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1No. CWP No. 4495 of 2011 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. CWP No.5052 of 2011 For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). Office Order dated 6.6.2011, Annexure P-1, is under challenge at the instance of Shri Manohar Lal, the petitioner in CWP No. 4495 of 2011, whereby, he has been transferred as Deputy Ranger from Panaper Block of Palampur Division to Working Plan Range, Jawali, on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of the transfer policy framed by the State Government, which prohibits transfer of an employee, who is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation within a short span of time. According to him, he is due for retirement on 31.3.2012, just over eight months henceforth. 2. The petitioner in CWP No. 5052 of 2011, Shri Mulkh Raj, who was transferred from Working Plan Range, Jawali to Panaper Block of Palampur Division vice Mr. Manohar Lal, petitioner in CWP No. 4495 of 2011, is aggrieved by memo dated 14.6.2011, Annexure P-5, whereby his joining at the transferred station was not accepted on the ground that his home range, Baijnath is adjoining to Palampur Range, within which he has been transferred, which is not permissible under the transfer policy framed by the State Government. This was also ground of challenge in CWP No. 4495 of 2011, 3 Manohar Lal vs. State of H.P. and others. Indisputably, Shri Manohar Lal, petitioner in CWP No. 4495 of 2011, is already working in Panaper Range, which adjoins his home range Mallan, albeit the fact that now he is under orders of transfer to Working Plan Range, Jawali. 3. Against the above backdrop, a piquant situation has arisen in which Shri Manohar Lal, petitioner in CWP No. 4495 of 2011, is working in his home range, Mulkh Raj petitioner in CWP No. 5052 of 2011, is under orders of transfer to a range adjoining to his home range. Still further a disturbing situation that emerges out of the records is that all the seven private respondents in CWP No. 5052 of 2011, including the petitioner therein Shri Mulkh Raj are either working in their home ranges or in the ranges adjoining to their home ranges. 4. In view of the above, both the petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala Forest Circle, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P., to consider the grievances of Shri M.L. Sharma, petitioner in CWP No. 4495 of 2011 and take remedial steps in accordance with the transfer policy framed by the State Government permitting those officials who are due to retire in the 4 near future, either to allow them to remain at the same station or to adjust them in a convenient station as far as possible and to adjust Shri Mulkh Raj, petitioner in CWP No. 5052 of 2011, suitably, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both of them, if so desired. This exercise shall be carried out within 15 days from the date of production of copies of this judgment before respondent No.2 by the petitioners. Till then present arrangement may continue. Due and admissible salary shall be paid to Shri Mulkh Raj, petitioner in CWP No. 5052 of 2011, within the same period. 5. The petitions so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 25th July, 2011 (Lsp)