IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 640 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.5.2009. Sanjay Kumar … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents 1 & 2: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent No.3: Mr. A.K. Vashishta, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-8. On 24th December, 2008 the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued an order whereby the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bilaspur was transferred as Executive Officers of Municipal Council, Una. The petitioner complied with the transfer order and joined at Una on 15th January, 2009. Within one month of his joining at Una, another order was issued by the Principal 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Secretary (UD) to the Govt. of H.P. transferring the petitioner from Una to Parwanoo. The petitioner joined at Parwanoo on 16th February, 2009. Within 10 days of his joining at Parwanoo, the Principal Secretary (UD) to the Govt. of H.P. passed a 3rd order transferring the petitioner from Parwanoo to Dalhouse. He went to join at Dalhouse and on 2nd March, 2009 the Principal Secretary passed another order modifying the earlier order of transfer and transferring the petitioner to Kangra. By the same order one Shri Des Raj Chaudhary respondent No.3 was transferred from Kangra to Chamba and one Shri Kartar Singh from Chamba to Dalhousie. This order was issued on 2nd March, 2009. A photocopy of the same has been placed on record by the petitioner, which shows that it was probably faxed at about 12.58 (A.N.). The petitioner thereafter proceeded to Kangra and assumed charge on 2nd March, 2009. On the same date another order is purported to have been passed by the Principal Secretary, whereby the transfer of Des Raj Chaudhary were cancelled but no orders with regard to the petitioner were passed. Within a span of less than three months, the petitioner was treated like a shuttlecock and transferred to four different places. We are also surprised to note that on 2nd March, 2009 the earlier orders were modified after the petitioner joined at Kangra and fresh orders were passed, retaining the respondent No.3 at Kangra but no orders were passed in respect of the petitioner. We had vide our order dated 9th March, 2009 granted stay of the order Annexure P-8 and directed that the petitioner shall be 3 permitted to continue as Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kangra and that respondent No.3 will join at Chamba. Reply has now been filed by the State and in para 7 of the reply, it has been stated as follows:- “That it is relevant to submit here that in compliance of Hon’ble Court order dated 9.3.2009 the order issued at Annexure (P-8) has already been withdrawn and respondent No.3 has been ordered to join at Municipal Council, Chamba. The relevant copy of the said order is annexed as R-1/2.” In view of the cancellation of the impugned orders, the main relief claimed for no longer survives. Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred from time to time without giving him any transfer and travelling allowance or joining time and directions may be issued to the respondents to grant the same to the petitioner. We feel that at this stage it would not be appropriate for us to go into the merits of the matter. The petitioner may approach the respondents for grant of transfer allowance and joining time, etc. as per the rules. He shall make his representation for grant of such allowances in respect of the transfers referred to in the writ petition to the Principal Secretary (Urban Development) within four weeks from today. The Principal Secretary (UD) shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and if the petitioner is held entitled to any monetary benefits the same shall be given to him within a further period of two weeks. Needless to say, that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed in this regard he shall be at liberty 4 to approach this Court. The writ petition is disposed of in light of the aforesaid directions. Dasti copy. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 18, 2009, ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™