IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5501 of 2010 Date of decision : December 3, 2010 Rattan Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner is a Class-IV employee, working as Peon in Division No.1 of Public Works Department at Bilaspur, since July, 2006. He is aggrieved by his transfer to Hamirpur, vide order dated 25th August, 2010, Annexure P-2. His grievance is that his transfer is against the Policy of Transfer, issued by the respondents on 10th April, 2008, copy Annexure P-3. 2. In the reply, it is stated that it is the sweet will of the employer to transfer its employees, from one place to another place and that in the present case transfer has been effected to fill a post at Hamirpur, which is lying vacant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Guideline No.2, in Annexure P-3, per which transfer of a Class-IV employee is to be made sparingly, on compassionate and administrative grounds. 5. Transfer of the petitioner has been effected, in the public interest. Administrative reason is included in the public interest. So, it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the guidelines, contained in Annexure P-3. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. December 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J