IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 7955 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.12.2010. Desh Raj …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Banbhushan Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting-aside office order dated 4.9.2001 Annexure A-4 with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to serve at the present place of posting. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that vide office order dated 4.9.2001, he has been repatriated in the present department illegally, arbitrarily and without following the prescribed norms for the purpose. It is not necessary to go in detail the stand of the petitioner in view of short controversy involved in the petition. 3. The respondent No. 2 has contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply and has taken the plea that petitioner being surplus Patwari was placed at the disposal of respondent No. 3 in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… compliance to the government letter dated 25.6.2001 just to utilize his services. The government has withdrawn the previous letter dated 25.6.2001 vide letter dated 31.8.2001, the services of the petitioner have been called back to the parent department. In these circumstances, the order dated 4.9.2001 has been passed in compliance to the order dated 31.8.2001 of the government. The respondent No.3 has filed separate reply and has taken more or less the same plea as taken by respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present case is covered by judgement dated 2.8.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 3221 of 2008. The file of CWP(T) No. 3221 of 2008 was also called. In that case, the petitioner had challenged Annexure P-5, which is similar to Annexure P-4 in the present petition. A co-ordinate Bench of this court has decided CWP(T) No. 3221 of 2008 on 2.8.2010 and passed the following order:- “Mr. R.P. Singh submits that in similar cases, i.e. CWP No. 1815/2009, titled Kuldeep Chand versus State of Himahcal Pradesh and others decided on 22.7.2008 and other connected matters, Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has undertaken that the petitioners cases for transfer shall be considered strictly on the basis of seniority and also on the basis of options to be exercised by them with a rider that in case the posts are not available in a particular District Headquarters, an incumbent shall be adjusted on the basis of seniority and option in the adjoining District. 2. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent-State to undertake fresh exercise to post/transfer/deploy the petitioner on secondment basis after …3… seeking his option strictly on the basis of seniority. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment by the petitioners. No costs.” 5. Therefore, the petition is disposed of in terms of judgement dated 2.8.2010 in CWP(T) No. 3221 of 2008 and it is ordered that respondent- State shall undertake fresh exercise to post/ transfer/ deploy the petitioner on secondment basis after seeking his option strictly on the basis of seniority without discriminating the petitioner. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgement in one month by the petitioner. December 7, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.