IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 3177 of 2010. Decided on 29th July, 2010. Amar Chand. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …… Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. None for respondents No. 4 &5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(i) That the impugned transfer order dated 29.05.2010 Annexure P-3, and relieving order dated 7.6.2010, annexure P-2 may kindly be held wrong, illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, violative of transfer policy of the Government of H.P. and has been issued in colourable exercise of powers by respondents No. 2 to 3 and the same may kindly be set aside, quashed.” 2. On 11th June, 2010, the Court passed the following order: “The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance office order Annexure P-3, dated 29.05.2010, 2 whereby he has been transferred from I.P.H. Division, Mandi to I.P.H. Division No. 1, Kullu vice Shri Som Dev. Petitioner has already completed two years and two months at the present place of posting. However, taking into consideration the injury, which his wife has received in the year, 2008 and that he has lost his only son, the petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate representation to the Secretary (IPH) to the Government of H.P. against the impugned transfer order dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Secretary (IPH) shall decide the same within a period of four weeks after receipt of the certified copy of this order by a speaking order. Till then, the petitioner is permitted to work at the present place of posting. List after six weeks” 3. We are informed that no orders have been passed on the representation filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that until the representation is duly considered in terms of the submissions made therein and disposed of, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue. Needless to say, that the order passed on the representation will be communicated to the petitioner. 3 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 29th July, 2010 (bhupender/K. Attri)