IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3029 of 2011. Date of Decision : May 23, 2011 Bias Dev Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Smt. Saraswati Devi, respondent No. 4, is present in the Court. 2. In terms of office order dated 28.4.2011 petitioner Sh. Bias Dev was transferred from GPS Bhaderwar to GPS Nabahi. 3. Today it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 28.4.2011 was modified by the Government in terms of subsequent order dated 29.4.2011 and the short stay of Sh. Bias Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Dev was condoned. The State has not filed the reply. From the record it cannot be ascertained as to whether the short stay which was condoned was actually that of Ms. Neelam Kumari or Sh. Bias Dev. 4. On 16.5.2011 the following order was passed by the Court:- “We informed as on today the petitioner is at Government Primary School, Nabahi, Ms. Neelam Kumari at Government Primary School, Bhaderwar and Ms. Rekha Devi at Government Primary School, Chowk. For the time being, the petitioner will continue at Government Primary School, Nabahi, Ms. Neelam Kumari at Government Primary School, Bhaderwar and Ms. Rekha Devi at Government Primary School, Chowk. Admitted. Post on 23.5.2011 for disposal before SB-VII at 10 a.m.” The parties before this Court are complying with the same. 5. The petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to ascertain the factual position with regard to condonation of short stay and after hearing all concerned i.e. Sh. Bias Dev, Ms. Neelam Kumari and Smt. Rekha Devi decide the matter with regard to the posting of the petitioner and the private respondent. The same shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. Till then the arrangement in terms of order dated 16.5.2011 shall continue. Petitioner undertakes to bring a copy of this order to the notice of respondent No. 2 within two days. 3 6. It is stated that respondent No. 5 has met with an accident and has also undergone medical surgery twice. All these aspects shall be kept in mind by respondent No. 2 while deciding the case. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 23, 2011 (PK)