HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3576/2011 Date of Decision: July 13, 2011 Roop Singh Patial ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Pursuant to the orders dated 7.7.2011, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi has not appeared, but however record has been produced, which has been perused and returned. 2. Perusal of records reveals that petitioner was transferred from Udaipur, Lahaul & Spiti (hard/tribal area) on his request on 26.5.2010. Undisputedly, since then he has been discharging his duties satisfactorily at Ghumarwin. Presently he is serving as a Naib Tehsildar, Settlement Circle, Ghumarwin. 2 3. Vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011, he was transferred from Ghumarwin to Tehsil office Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur vice private respondent. However the impugned order does not reflect any public interest. Be that as it may be, even the file produced before the Court does not reflect any public interest necessitating his transfer from Ghumarwin to Bhoranj. There is no justification for shifting him only within a period of one year. 4. Undoubtedly, petitioner has served, though in separate capacity, in the tribal areas during his entire service period. No doubt it was on the petitioner’s asking, but nonetheless the fact of the matter is that he has rendered more service in tribal/hard/difficult area than the private respondent. Additionally, there is nothing on record to justify the transfer of private respondent to Ghumarwin. 5. It is urged that petitioner is not holding an ex-cadre post and it may delay preparation of his pension papers. Petitioner has no grievance in that regard also. It is also urged that the transfer is within a radius of 30 kms. However this fact would not have any bearing on merits. Normally Courts are loath in interfering in such like matters, but however this case warrants 3 interference. Private respondent can continue to serve at Bhoranj, where he has not completed his normal tenure of three years. He was posted only in January, 2010. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is quashed. 6. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. Copy dasti. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 13, 2011 (rana)