IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5163 of 2010. Date of decision: 29.12.2010 R.K.Kaundinya …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the representation of the petitioner and has further prayed that the order of his transfer from Shimla to Kangra be set aside and he may be permitted to function at Shimla. 2 It would be pertinent to mention here that earlier also, the petitioner had filed a similar petition challenging his transfer from Shimla to Kangra. In that Writ Petition, i.e., CWP No.2954 of 2010 decided on 13.7.2010, it was directed that the petitioner may file an appropriate representation and the respondent would consider the matter afresh. The petitioner filed such representation and the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh considered the same and passed a reasoned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner. In the order, it is mentioned that initially, the petitioner was adjusted at Shimla since he was a Law Graduate and was transferred from Municipal Council, Theog to the Directorate of Urban Development at Shimla despite the fact that there was no sanctioned post of Executive Officer in the Directorate. The Principal Secretary (Urban Development) found that due to the ill-health of the petitioner, his services could not be utilized fully for the disposal of the litigation work. There was also no sanctioned post of Executive Officer in the Directorate and the work of the 3 Municipal Council, Kangra was suffering as no Executive Officer was available to be transferred there. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on this ground. Ms.Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that keeping in view the ill- health of the petitioner, he should be permitted to continue at Shimla and he was brought from Theog to Shimla only because of this reason. Ms.Archana Dutt also stated that the salary of the petitioner be paid. As far as the first plea is concerned, as held by the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, there is a full fledged hospital at Tanda which is close to Kangra. The Principal Secretary has also recorded that the salary of the petitioner should be paid. In case the salary of the petitioner has not been paid, the same shall be paid to him latest by 31.1.2011. The request of the petitioner that he should be adjusted at Shimla cannot be accepted. 4 In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. December 29, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge