IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3277 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.4.2011. Makhmali Devi …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order whereby she has been transferred from Ratti to Nirmand and respondent No.4, who was under transfer to Nirmand has been adjusted at Ratti. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner was earlier serving at Mandi. Thereafter, she was promoted and posted to Ratti, which is about 18 kilometers from Mandi. She had spent merely six months in Ratti, when she was transferred to Nirmand vide the impugned order. The stand of the State is that transfer is an exigency in service and no employee has right to stay at one place. The stand of respondent 2 No.4 is that she had been transferred to Nirmand but on her request she has been adjusted at Ratti. According to her, her husband Shri K.K.Vaidya is suffering from acute memory loss and requires an attendant 24 hours a day. From the material on record it is obvious that the husband of respondent No.4 is totally dependent and needs an attendant round the clock. If the State has adjusted the respondent at a station of her choice there is nothing illegal in this. 3. Therefore, the petition is rejected. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner makes a representation that instead of posting her at Nirmand she be posted at a station where her husband is posted or at a station close to such place, as a couple case, then her case shall also be considered in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. With these observations the petition is disposed of. No costs. 26th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.