IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. (T) No. 621 of 2008 Date of decision: 8 . 7. 2009 Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Vikas Rathore,and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General, for respondent- State. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as Inspector in the Department of Co-operative Societies has challenged the order dated 26.3.2008, whereby he was transferred from Development Block Gohar Tehsil Chachiot District Mandi, H.P. to Development Block Tissa (Chamba). Only two grounds have been raised to challenge the transfer orders, firstly that the transfer has been made after a short span of less then two years and secondly that the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. - 2 - brother of the petitioner is serving in the Army and as per the policy of the State Government, as far as possible, the petitioner should be adjusted at a place of convenience. Reply has been filed by the respondents-State. Reply of the State shows that except for a short period of about one year in the year 1978-79, the petitioner has virtually spent his entire service career in District Mandi. The petitioner admittedly belongs to a State cadre and we fail to understand why he should have any objection for being posted out of District Mandi. We also find that the petitioner stayed for seven years at Gohar from 1984 to 1991 and thereafter again 1994 to 2002. Thereafter, now he has spent another three years at Gohar. Thus he has remained for 20 years at Gohar which is his home Station. He has no vested right to remain at Gohar for such a long period. By now he has completed his normal tenure of three years at Gohar. Somehow the petitioner has managed to remain at Gohar for most of his entire service career. As far as the ground relating to the brother serving in the Army is concerned the new policy produced before us shows that now this concession is only available to the wife only and not to the brother. Even earlier - 3 - when this benefit was available it would not mean that a person had to stay at one station for his entire career. The petitioner, as we have pointed out above, has managed to stay at Gohar virtually for 20 years and must therefore be posted out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is vacated. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 8, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)