IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8510 of 2011-A Date of decision : November 1, 2011 Charanji Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been working as Forest Range Officer at Dada Siba, in Kangra District, on 3rd September, 2011, when his transfer order, copy Annexure P-1, was issued. On transfer, he was posted as Assistant Director, Amb Area Office Swan River (IWM) Project, Una. He claims to have joined at Amb against the post, to which he was transferred, on 16th September, 2011, per joining report Annexure P-2. On 22nd September, 2011, Annexure P-3 was issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who issued the earlier order of transfer Annexure P-1 and by this order, transfer order Annexure P-1 was superseded and the petitioner was posted as Range Forest Officer, Trilokpur Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… in Nahan Forest Division, in public interest, with immediate effect. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, copy Annexure P-3. His contention is that when he had already joined, in compliance with the order, copy Annexure P-1, at Amb, his further transfer vide Annexure P-3, within a few days of his joining at Amb, is contrary to the transfer policy of the Government. It is also his case that he would be superannuating in April, 2013 and as such he has the right to be posted at a place of his choice, as per transfer policy formulated by the State. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have denied that the petitioner had joined at Amb, as claimed by him. Their plea is that before the implementation of transfer order Annexure P-1, the said transfer order was superseded by transfer order Annexure P-3. 5. Though the petitioner claims that he had joined at Amb vide Annexure P-2, there is nothing on record, indicating that he had been relieved from his earlier place of posting, i.e. Dada Siba. As a matter of fact, petitioner had been endorsed copy of Annexure P-1, by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, only on 19th September, 2011, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. Now, when the copy of transfer order Annexure P-1 had been endorsed to the …3… petitioner only on 19th September, 2011, there could not have been any occasion for him to have joined at his new place of posting, i.e. Amb, on 16th September, 2011, or say three days before the endorsement of the copy of order of transfer to him. This apart, there is no order of relieving the petitioner from the post, which he occupied at Dada Siba nor has he placed on record any relinquishment report, indicating that he had relinquished the charge at Dada Siba, before joining at Amb. 6. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that order of transfer Annexure P-1 had been implemented and, hence, it could not have been superseded vide transfer order Annexure P-3. As regards the second submission, petitioner may make a representation to the concerned authorities, for being posted at a place of choice, on account of his being due for retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation, within two years. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. November 1, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J