IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3514 of 2009 Date of decision : May 20, 2011 Gopal Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Ramesh Thakur & R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Abhay Kaushal, vice Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner had been working as Stenographer, in the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, since 1996. It appears that he was promoted, on adhoc basis, sometime in the year 2009, as Senior Scale Stenographer. On account of his promotion, one post of Stenographer became surplus in the Directorate at Shimla, while there was one vacancy in the office of Joint Director at Dharamshala. Therefore, order dated 1st August, 2009, copy Annexure P-1, transferring an already promoted Senior Scale Stenographer, namely Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Shri Vidya Som Bhardwaj, respondent No.3 herein, was issued. 2. It appears that respondent No.3 Shri Vidya Som Bhardwaj did not want to go to Dharamshala, on account of some illness. He approached Hon’ble Chief Minister, for being retained at Shimla. From the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, two-three notes were issued to the Directorate, for accommodating respondent No.3 at Shimla and one of the notes said that in place of respondent No.3, petitioner, who had recently been promoted, on adhoc basis, as Senior Scale Stenographer, should be shifted to Dharamshala. On account of these notes of Hon’ble Chief Minister, order of transfer of respondent No.3 to Dharamshala was cancelled, vide order dated 25th September, 2009, copy Annexure P-5, and the present petitioner was shifted to Dharamshala. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that the order of cancelling the order of transfer of respondent No.3 Shri Vidya Som Bhardwaj and the order of transferring the petitioner in his (respondent No.3’s) place, to Dharamshala, are malafide, as these are based on the notes sent by the Hon’ble Chief Minister to the Directorate, with a view to accommodating respondent No.3 at Shimla. …3… 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order is malafide, for the reasons already noticed, hereinabove. Submission is without merit. If a Government employee has some compulsion or difficulty or genuine problem, in moving from one place to another, on being transferred, he can approach the authorities, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister and if, on consideration of the difficulty of such employee, the Hon’ble Chief Minister or the higher authorities, sends some note to the transferring authority, that cannot be said to be a case of malafide, only for this reason. 6. Petitioner has been at Shimla since 1996. He was promoted, on adhoc basis. Therefore, as a matter of principle, a person, who is promoted should have no grievance, if soon after promotion he is shifted to another place. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is dismissed. May 20, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J