IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 4102 of 2011. Decided on: 20.09.2011. ___________________________________________ Pawan Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner joined his duties as Draftsman in H.P.,PWD Division, Jawali on 18th September, 2008. He was transferred from Jawali Division to 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur on 11th May, 2011. He submitted his joining report on 19th May, 2011 and he joined his duties in the office of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Superintendent Engineer, 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur on 19th May, 2011 after his transfer from Jawali Division, as is evident from Annexure P-4, dated 21st May, 2011. The earlier transfer order dated 11th May, 2011 has been modified vide office order dated 18th May, 2011, whereby the petitioner has now been transferred to the office of CE-cum-Project Director, HPRIDC, SRP, Shimla-2 vice respondent No.3, who has been transferred to 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur. 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order dated 11th May, 2011 has been modified by respondents No.1 and 2 to accommodate respondent No.3. According to him, his client has joined his duties in 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur pursuant to office order dated 11th May, 2011 on 19th May, 2011 and in these circumstances, the earlier office order dated 11th May, 2011 should not have been modified. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that transfer order dated 11th May, 2011 has been modified on administrative grounds on the request of respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.3 though served, is not present. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. - 3 - 6. Petitioner has joined his duties as Draftsman at Jawali Division on 18th September, 2008. He has been transferred to 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur on 11th May, 2011. He joined his duties there on 19th May, 2011. 7. It is evident from the averments contained in the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 that the earlier transfer order dated 11th May, 2011 has been modified at the instance of respondent No.3 and the petitioner, who had already joined his duties at Nurpur on 19th May, 2011, has now been transferred to Shimla. Respondents No.1 and 2 have not disclosed what was the administrative exigency or public interest, on the basis of which the earlier office order dated 11th May, 2011 has been modified. It is for the employer to decide where an incumbent has to be posted. However, the power to transfer is coupled with duty. It has to be exercised in a judicious manner. In the instant case, the office order dated 18th May, 2011 is neither in public interest nor in administrative exigency and the same is colourable exercise of power to accommodate respondent No.3. The respondent/State was well aware when the petitioner has been transferred from Jawali Division to 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur about his posting at various places. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. - 4 - Annexure P-5, dated 18th May, 2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at 9th Circle, H.P., PWD, Nurpur. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 20, 2011. (sck).