IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4550 of 2011 Decided on: August 23, 2011 Amar Singh ..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. M.L. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare, Shimla, in June, 2005. Contract was for a period of one year. It was renewed thereafter on year-to-year basis. Contract has been renewed even for the year 2011-12. Petitioner was transferred from Shimla to Chamba, vide order dated 6.6.2011, copy Annexure P-2. He felt aggrieved by this order of his transfer and filed the present petition. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he being a contract employee is not liable to be transferred. Also, it is Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É contended by him that nobody has been posted at Shimla, in his place. 4. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that in view of the instructions issued by the government in the year 2009, copy annexure R-1, a contract employee, on completion of five years service, can be transferred from one place to another and these instructions are applicable to the employees of all departments of the government. 5. Petitioner has completed five years service, on contract basis. Therefore, he is squarely covered by the instructions, issued vide Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s contract is executed afresh every year, contract service, rendered by him prior to the latest contract, cannot be counted for the purpose of five years service, which makes a contract employee liable for transfer. Argument has been noticed only to be rejected. According to the policy of the government, all contract appointments are made for a period of one year, at a time. Such appointments are renewed by executing fresh contracts. Therefore, the spirit of instructions (Annexure R-1), is to take into account the entire service on contract basis, though contracts are executed on year-to-year basis. 6. As regards the second submission that the post at Shimla has been kept vacant as nobody has been posted É3É in place of the petitioner, that is none of the concern of the petitioner. It is for the respondents to decide whether to fill the post at Shimla or not. 7. In view of the above stated reasons, writ petition is dismissed. August 23, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.