IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1360/2011 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Manju Khullar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. And ors. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No. 2. V.K. Ahuja , Judge (Oral) The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I vide order dated 4.3.2011, Annexure P-1. The petitioner was posted at D.C. Office, Shimla while respondent No.2 was posted at D.C. Office, Solan. Accordingly, the petitioner gave her joining report at D.C. Office, Shimla on 5.3.2011. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.3.2011, Annexure P-2, the order was modified and the petitioner was directed to join at D.C. Office, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.Yes. 2 Solan while respondent No.2 was permitted to join at D.C. Office, Shimla. The petitioner was never relieved, but respondent No.2 was permitted to join on 16.3.2011. On 18.3.2011, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “...........It will be explained as to how the second respondent was permitted to join duty without relieving the petitioner, despite several instructions issued by the Government. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceedings in that regard will be deferred for the time being.” 2. It is clear that despite several directions issued by the Government and observations made by this Court in various transfer matters, still respondent No.2 was permitted to join at the transferred place without the petitioner having been duly relieved from duties. Two persons cannot draw salary against one post. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner has family circumstances, as submitted, which compel her to be at Shimla. Her son is studying in Shimla, her daughter has died and her husband used to go out of station for discharging his duties. These circumstances should have been considered sympathetically by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order transferring the petitioner within 10 days from Shimla to Solan. There was no justification to modify the order within 10 days, therefore, the impugned transfer order cannot be said to be in public interest and is liable to be set aside. In case, the petitioner was 3 to be shifted to Solan, it should have been clearly mentioned in the first order itself so that she may have forgone her promotion. Therefore, impugned order, Annexure P-2 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is required to join at the transferred place taking usual joining time as per rules and the respondent No.1 is competent to pass the order giving fresh posting to respondent No.2 or keep her at D.C. Office, Solan. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy dasti. March 29, 2011 ( V.K. Ahuja) (pankaj) Judge.