IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 3696 of 2011. Decided on: 26.08.2011. ___________________________________________ Mamta Sharma. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Bhupender Thakur vice Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is working as Female Health Worker in the respondent-department. She was posted in Health Sub- Centre, Sharda, District Shimla in 2007. She worked at Health Sub-Centre at Sharda till April, 2010. She was transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Sharda to Health-Sub-Centre, Shakrah on 5th April, 2010. Now she has been transferred 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - from Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah in Block Mashobra, District Shimla to Health Sub-Centre Manewati, Block Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla vide office order dated 13th May, 2011. 2. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been transferred without permitting her to complete her normal tenure of 3 to 5 years at Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah to accommodate respondent No.3, who was under transfer from I.G.M.C., Shimla to Health Sub-Centre, Manewati vide office order dated 16th March, 2011. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Advocate have argued that it is the prerogative of the employer to transfer an employee in the larger public interest. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Advocate appearing vice learned counsel for respondent No.3 in addition has also argued that his client has made a representation to respondent No.2 to accommodate her since her husband is suffering from severe arthritis disease. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was posted at Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah vide office order dated 5th April, 2010. She has now been transferred, as noticed above, to Health Sub-Centre, Manewati. It has come on record that respondent No.3 was - 3 - under transfer from I.G.M.C., Shimla to Health Sub-Centre, Manewati vide office order dated 16th March, 2011. Petitioner has worked at Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah only for a period of about one year. It is thus, clear that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected to accommodate respondent No.3. It is for the employer to transfer an employee to a particular place, however, in the larger public interest and administrative exigency. It is not discernable from the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 why the petitioner has been transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah to Health Sub- Centre, Manewati, Block Nerwah, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. 6. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has remained posted in and around Sharda and Shakrah (Mashobra Block) for the last 6 years. This fact was within the knowledge of the respondent-State when she was transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Sharda to Health Sub- Centre, Shakrah. 7. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, appearing vice learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that his client has made a representation to respondent No.2 to cancel the transfer order dated 16th March, 2011. According to him, respondent No.3’s husband is suffering with acute arthritis. - 4 - 8. Merely that the respondent No.3’s husband is suffering with acute arthritis, cannot form the ground to cancel her transfer order dated 16th March, 2011, that too, by disturbing the petitioner within a period of about one year at Sakrah. The transfer order should be made in the larger public interest and administrative grounds. There was no compelling reason for the respondent-State to cancel the transfer of respondent No.3 from I.G.M.C., Shimla to Health Sub-Centre Manewati. The power to transfer an employee by the employer is coupled with the duty to ensure that there is no unreasonableness, arbitrariness in their action. The transfer of the petitioner is the outcome of colourable exercise of power. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, date 13th May, 2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties at Health Sub-Centre, Shakrah, District Shimla till the completion of her normal tenure. Respondent No.3 be relieved forthwith. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 26, 2011. (sck).