CWP (T) No.2353 of 2008 21.5.2009. Present: Mr.S.C. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G., for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 3. When the matter was taken up, Mr.S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, initially, prayed for time to file rejoinder. From the record we find that time to file rejoinder was granted on 3rd June, 2008, but no rejoinder has been filed in the last 10 months. The rejoinder was not filed despite the fact that the State, in its reply, had specifically taken a plea that the petitioner had not annexed any documents in support of his plea that he was suffering from medical ailments, which prevented him from joining at the place where he was transferred. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been transferred from Sarkaghat to RFO Uhal Range (BIR) Wild Life Division Hamirpur. According to the petitioner, this is a remote snow bound area and since he has suffered from gangrene and his toe has been amputated and he has also undergone a stomach operation, he cannot be posted at this place. Prior to this petition, the petitioner had earlier filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging his transfer. This Application was directed to be treated as a representation. The representation was disposed of by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide order dated 8th April, 2008. The said Officer found that the petitioner, since April, 1996, i.e. for more than 12 years, had remained posted in and around Sarkaghat and prior to his posting at Sarkaghat, he remained for nine long years at Dharampur, which is also close to Sarkaghat. -2- Therefore, for more than 20 years, the petitioner remained in and around his present place of posting i.e. Sarkaghat. No documents in support of the medical ailment were filed with the petition. Today, Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has shown to us certain documents which only reflect that the petitioner had undergone treatment for gangrene and one toe of the petitioner has amputated more than 25 years back. Similarly, the petitioner had undergone stomach operation many years back. There is nothing on record to show that due to these ailments, the petitioner cannot serve at the place to where he has been transferred. Transfer is an incident of service. No employee has a vested right to be posted at one place. This Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere in transfer matters unless it is shown that the transfer is actuated by mala fides or is arbitrary in nature. Both these factors are missing in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly rejected. In view of the final disposal of the main petitions, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, shall also stand vacated. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . May 21, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.