IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 625 of 2009. Date of decision: 15.5.2009 Joginder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Hamender Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: S/Shri R.K.Bawa, Advocate General and R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.P.S.Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer from CHC, Bhoranj to CHC, Bharmour. The main ground of challenge is that the petitioner was posted at CHC, Bhoranj at his own request less than two years back and since he has not completed his normal tenure of three years at Bhoranj, he should not have been transferred from there. 2 Reply has been filed by the State to the writ petition. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that the petitioner after joining service was posted at Sub Centre, Malahat where he served from 25.5.1982 to 10.6.1987. Then he remained posted at Nalyana from 11.6.1987 to 8.7.2000; Civil Hospital, Joginder Nagar from 10.7.2000 to 23.5.2002; Civil Hospital, Sandhole from 24.5.2002 to 13.7.2006; Primary Health Center, Bir, Block Mahakal from 14.7.2006 to 18.4.2007; then PHC Mahakal from 19.4.2007 to 12.6.2007 and thereafter, CHC, Bhoranj. It is apparent that the petitioner during the major portion of the service has remained posted in and around his native place. Respondent No.3 also belongs to the same area. He has also spent a number of years in and around his native place. However, for the last five years, he has served at CHC, Bharmour which is a difficult area and has now been transferred at his own request. We find no arbitrariness in the action of the State in acceding to the request of the respondent No.3. Transfer is an incidence of service and this Court normally does not interfere in transfer matters except if it is shown that the transfer is actuated by mala fides or that the power of transfer has been exercised 3 in a arbitrary manner. In the present case, these two factors are not made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay order shall stand vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge May 15, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge