1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4588 of 2010 Decided on: 30th November, 2010. Jeevan Lal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. ( Oral ) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 14.0.2010 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-2). b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to complete his normal period of tenure at Jassourgarh beat, Tikri Range, Chamba Fores Division.” 2. In reply at paragraphs 10 & 11, it is stated as follows: “10. The contents of this para are wrong hence denied. A proposal regarding cancellation of transfer of petitioenr from Chil Bangla Beat to Jassourgarh beat in Tikri Range was approved by the competent authority as conveyed by the Pr. CCR H.P. Vide letter No. Ft. 437-23/85 (E-II) Chama dated 14.7.2010 addressed to respondent No. 2, (P2) to issue necessary order keeping in view the 2 instructions/policy regarding transfer and posting of Forest Guard. On receipt of this letter by D.F.O. Chamba it was found that the petitioner had already joined in Tilkri Range on 7.6.2010 in compliance of C.F. Chamba's Office order No. 302 dated 27.3.2010. In the mean time the petitioenr approached this Hon'ble Court against the above said proposal and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass interim order dated 4.8.2010. Keeping in view the orders of Hon'ble Court and the fact that petitioner had already joined at his new place of posting, the matter was referred back by D.F.O. Chamba to C.F. Chamba and thereafter no formal order of his transfer have yet been issued. 11. The contents of this para are wrong hence denied. As stated in reply to para 10, no formal orders or transfer of petitioner were issued and the letter dated 14.7.2010 was only an approval subject to provision of transfer policy. Since the petitioner had already joined at the new place of posting, this approval has not been followed with formal transfer order.” 3. In terms of the reply, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents/competent authority to grant the approval for cancellation of the transfer, so that the petitioner may be in a position to complete his normal tenure. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 30th, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl) Judge.