IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP. No. 11435 of 2011-D. Date of Decision : 29th December, 2011. Satya Parkash Sharma son of Sh.G.D.Sharma, Resident of village Kolth, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. …..Petitioner. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Ritz Annexe, Shimla District Shimla, H.P. ….Respondent. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “a). That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing office order dated 24.10.2011 Annexure P1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Himachal Bhavan New Delhi to The Hatu Narkanda District Shimla as Senior Manager as well as order dated 17.12.2011 Annexure P5 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Respondent Corporation. This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Annexure P2 i.e. order dated 24.10.2011 vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved from Himachal Bhavan New Delhi. b). This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation by way of issue of a writ of Mandamus to allow the petitioner to serve as 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Senior Manager at Himachal Bhavan New Delhi till his superannuation i.e. till 30.6.2013. 2. Learned Standing Counsel on instruction submits that the Corporation is in dire need of the services of the petitioner at Hattu and that the Corporation does not intend to fill up the post of Senior Manager, Delhi for the time being. The petitioner points out that for the last 25 years, he has been working at Delhi and in occupation of the accommodation allotted by the Corporation. It is prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to retain the same for some more time in view of the education of the children. It is pointed out that the rules permit retention for four more months. 3. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be permitted to retain the cottage subject to the payment of the rent as per the rules for further period of four months. It is also made clear that it will be open to the petitioner, after joining service at Hatu, to make a representation before the Competent Authority and as and when the post at Delhi is sought to be filled up, the case of the petitioner will also be considered. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 29, 2011 (R/Jai)