IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4045 of 2011 Reserved on: 25.08.2011 Date of Decision: 30. 8.2011 Pritma Devi …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar Acharya, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent No. 4.: Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J 1. The petitioner, who is working as Female Health Worker, by means of this appeal has challenged her transfer from Health Sub Centre Kudi, District Bilaspur to Health Sub Centre Tarwar, District Bilaspur. 2. The main grounds raised by the petitioner are that she has only spent one year at Kudi and has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy. The other ground raised is that the petitioner was 56 years of age and was to superannuate in the month of June, 2013 2 and should not have been transferred. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate the private respondent No.4. It is not disputed that the transfer of the petitioner has been issued to accommodate respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was under transfer to Health Sub Centre, Tarwar but she made a representation to the State Government that she be not transferred to Tarwar since her mother- in-law was suffering from congenital heart problem and her father-in-law was aged 81 years old and to be looked after by her. Her request was accepted by the State and she was adjusted at Kudi and the petitioner transferred to Tarwar. It is totally within the domain of the employer to accept or not to accept the representation of the employee against his or her transfer. The employer decided to accept the representation of respondent No.4. Now, the petitioner has also claimed that she is suffering from health problems and that her husband is unwell. These facts were not stated earlier. Be that as it may, it is not for this Court to decide whether the representation of the petitioner should be accepted or not. 3. Another important factor is that the petitioner prior to her posting at Kudi was posted at Sub Centre Bamta, which is only 11 kilometers from Kudi and therefore, it is 3 apparent that she spent almost four and half years near Kudi. Her claim that she has been transferred after one year cannot be accepted in view of this fact. 4. In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to respondent No.2 and if he finds merits in her representation then the petitioner can also be adjusted at a place more suitable to her. With these observations the petition is rejected. No costs. 30th August, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.