IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.6950 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.12.2010 ------------------------------------------------- Sanjeev Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for respondent No.3. V.K.Ahuja,J. (Oral): The petitioner is posted as Medical Officer (Dental) in the service of Himachal Government. He alleged that he had served at Karsog for a period of 9 years from January, 1998 onwards. Thereafter, he was transferred to C.H.C. Padhar and he served there for a period of 3 years and 9 months when he was transferred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. He joined at Zonal Hospital, Mandi, on 27.10.2010 and within four days of his joining, he received the transfer order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-3), vide which he was again transferred back to Padhar and his Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 transfer to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, was cancelled. The petitioner had completed his normal tenure of transfer at Padhar and after considering his case, the State Government had transferred him to Zonal Hospital Mandi, where he joined also, but within four days of his joining there, fresh transfer order was issued re-transferring him to C.H.C. Padhar. There appears to be no justification for the same and the same appears to have been done to adjust respondent No. 3, and she has served for less than three years when she was transferred to Padhar. 2. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 have taken the plea that their children are studying in the schools at Mandi and, therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to implement the fresh order passed by the State Government re-transferring him. I have already observed that there appears to be no justification for re-transferring the petitioner after he had completed his normal tenure. The petitioner was also working at Mandi and vide interim order dated 3.11.2010 passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to function at Mandi and respondent No. 3 appears to have not been relieved. Since the petitioner had also joined at Mandi, the petitioner shall continue to function at Mandi accordingly and as such, the impugned order Annexure P-3 is quashed till the general transfers. The State Government is at liberty to pass an appropriate order in the general transfer keeping in view the case of the petitioner at Padhar that he had already served there for his normal 3 tenure. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) is quashed till the next general transfers. 3. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 16, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge