HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7187/2010 Date of Decision: February 24, 2011 Bhupinder Pal Dogra ……. 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 : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Order dated 21.10.2010 reads as under:- “NO.HOM(FS)(HQ)(B)(6)3/04-4 Dated Shimla-171001 the 2010 OFFICE ORDER Shri Bhupinder Pal Dogra Leading Fireman Fire station Hamirpur is hereby attached at Fire Station Bilaspur with immediate effect in public interest and his salary for the month of October and November 2010, will be drawn from 10th Bn. Hamirpur. After the retirement of Sh. Prakash Chand Leading Fireman i.e. 30-11-2010, his transfer will be implemented on regular basis. He will not be entitled to claim T.T.A and joining time on this transfer and posting. The date of relieving and joining of the above official conveyed to this Hqrs. Commandant General, Home Guards Civil Defence & Fire Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001 Endst. No. 13384-87 As above Dated Shimla-2 the 21/X/2010 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:- 2 1. The Commandant Home Guard 5th Ban. Bilaspur and 10 Bn Hamirpur H.P. 2. Personal Files/Guard Files. Sd/- Commandant General, Home Guards Civil Defence & Fire Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001” 2. Order is unambiguously clear. Petitioner, on his request was ordered to be transferred to Bilaspur. Post at Bilaspur was to fall vacant on 30.11.2010, wherein he was to be accommodated on regular basis. There is no doubt that this transfer was on his request and his earlier orders of transfer, in terms of order dated 26.3.2010, from Bilaspur to Hamirpur were modified. Subsequently, order dated 21.10.2010 was modified and petitioner was transferred to Rohru which is the impugned action. 3. In the affidavit, the State has not shown the public interest which first prompted them to effect the transfer from Hamirpur to Bilaspur and then from Bilaspur/Hamirpur to Rohru. Transfer from Bilaspur to Rohru, from the affidavit filed by the respondents, appears to have been necessitated for the reason that during winter period normally there is increase in incidents of fire in the area. 4. This Court on 19.11.2010 passed the following order:- “19.11.2010 Present Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. CMP No. 11057 of 2010: Allowed. CWP No. 7187 of 2010: Short reply within a month. 3 CMP No. 11056 of 2010: Reply as above. In case the petitioner has not been relieved as on today, further proceedings in that regard will be deferred for the time being. Post on 30.12.2010. Sd/- (K.J.),C.J. Sd/- (V.K.S.),J. November 19,2010” 5. It is not the case of the State that petitioner, being a specialist, his services were specially required at Rohru, or to meet the administrative exigencies other persons were also transferred there. Only petitioner was picked. It is also not that other persons are not available who can competently handle the job there. No doubt, transfer is an incident of service and Courts should be loathe in interfering in such matters, but however I find that respondent-State has not come out with sufficient reasons justifying the public interest, which prompted the modification of the order of transfer of the petitioner from Bilaspur to Rohru within a short span of 16 days. The post at Bilaspur, according to the petitioner, has not been filled up till date. Consequently, order dated 8.11.2010 to the extent applicable to the petitioner is quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. February 24, 2011 (rana)