IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2504 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on 23.2.2011. Date of decision: 26.2.2011 Ved Prakash …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhusan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2010 whereby he has been repatriated/transferred to Electricity Division, HPSEB, Keylong from Larji Power House Division, HPSEB, Thalout. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is a T/Mate. This post is borne on the divisional cadre. The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Keylong and was engaged at Keylong. He was transferred to HPSEB Sub Division, Thalout construction Division, Pandoh on 22.12.2000. He worked thereafter at Pandoh and then at Thalout and has now been sent back to Keylong. I am of the view that the petitioner can have no 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 grievance against his being sent back to Keylong since his parental Division is Keylong Division. Since the employees are borne on the divisional cadre they only have lien in their original cadre and cannot claim as a matter of right that they should remain posted in some other division. 3. The other issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he alongwith 5 other persons were transferred from Keylong to Pandoh. Out of these, two are senior to him and three are junior to him. The petitioner alleges that he has been dealt with arbitrarily and the respondents should have followed some method and should have first transferred the junior most persons. I am unable to agree with this contention of the petitioner. The principle of last come and first go does not apply in the matter of transfer. All of them were posted out of Keylong at the same and now the petitioner has been sent back to his original cadre after six years. He has no vested right to remain posted at Thalout. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge February 26, 2011 (jai)