CWP No.1074 of 2008 with CWP(T) 1491 of 2008. CWP No.1074 of 2008: 21.5.2009. Present: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G., for respondent No.1. Mr.Adarsh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. CWP (T) No.1491 of 2008: Present: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G., for respondent No.1. Mr.Adarsh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging his transfer from Shimla to Rohru. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner, who is working as Inspector in the HRTC, had been seconded to the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Dharamshala and Nagrota Bagwan. He was repatriated to the parent Organization and thereafter, directed to join his duties in the office of Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC), Shimla, on 2.6.2008. It appears that the petitioner then made a request that he be posted to Dharamshala. This request was allowed and the order was passed by the HRTC on 9th June, 2008 posting the petitioner in the Head Office at Dharamshala, at his own request. However, before the petitioner could join at Dharamshala, another order was passed on 13.6.2008, whereby he was transferred to Ruhru. This order was challenged before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal initially granted an order of status quo, but this order of status quo was vacated on 4.7.2008 by a reasoned order passed by a single Member of the learned Tribunal. On -2- perusal of the reply of the HRTC, it was found that there was no Inspector in the Ruhru Unit whereas there was one Chief Inspector and seven Inspectors at Dharamshala. In addition to this, there were checking officials in the Head Office of the Flying Squad at Dharamshala. The HRTC, on this ground, moved an application for the vacation of the stay and taking these factors into consideration, the stay was vacated. Aggrieved by the vacation of the stay order, the petitioner filed CWP No.1074 of 2008 before this Court. In the meantime, due to the abolition of the Tribunal, the original petition has also been transferred to this Court. Since the matter involved is short, we do not intend to only dispose of the stay matter but we are finally disposing of both the cases. Transfer is an incident of service. No employee has a vested right to be posted at one place. The only ground raised in these petitions is that the petitioner’s transfer to Dharamshala was cancelled after a short span of few days. This ground is not available to the petitioner since he in fact never joined at Dharamshala pursuant to the transfer orders and while he was under transfer to Dharamshala, he was posted to Rohru. His transfer to Rohru has been justified on administrative grounds. This Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere in transfer matters unless it is shown that the transfer is actuated by mala fides or is arbitrary in nature. Both these factors are missing in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in both the writ petitions, which are accordingly rejected. -3- In view of the final disposal of the main petitions, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . May 21, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.