CWP No. 6368/2010 06.04.2011 Present: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate, for respondent No.4 Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief:- “i. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to forbear from acting upon the order dated 25.09.2010, Annexure P-4 and P-5 and to treat it as nonest and desist from implementing the impugned orders Annexure P-4 and P-5 and direction or order be issued to quash and set aside the said orders, Annexure P-4 and P-5. ii. That the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting, i.e., Indian Bank Branch, The Mall, Shimla.” 2. Vide order dated 25.9.2010 (Annexure P-4), petitioner, who is officiating as a Clerk/Shroff of Shimla Branch, stands transferred to the Solan Branch of the office of respondent No.1. Prior to his transfer to Shimla Branch, petitioner was officiating as a Clerk/Shroff in the Branch at Mashobra, from where he was transferred to Shimla vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-3). 3. It is a common case of the parties that petitioner was not transferred from Mashobra to Shimla and Shimla to Solan on medical grounds. Though this fact may not have any relevance to the point in issue, but however it be noticed that petitioner claims that he is undergoing medical treatment at various institutions in Shimla, whereas according to the respondents, petitioner does not suffer from any ailment. My attention is invited to Annexures RD & RE to show that petitioner had submitted false certificate in connection with his medical treatment. I refrain from adverting to this aspect of the matter. 4. It stands explained by the respondents that as of March 2010, there were two Branches in Shimla Centre i.e. Shimla, Mashobra and one extension counter at Chaura Maidan. Sometime in the year March, 2010, the extension counter at Chaura Maidan was up-graded to a full fledged Branch where Clerks/Shroffs were to be posted. Request transfer applications from all the serving candidates were invited for filling-up the said post. Admittedly, petitioner did not opt for his transfer/posting to the newly opened Branch at Chaura Maidan. Respondent No.1 received only three applications from S/Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Ajit Kumar and Roshan Lal Bhatia. S/Sh. Rajesh Bhatia and Ajit Kumar being the senior most were posted at the Branch at Chaura Maidan. On 27.9.2010, another Branch was established at Solan. Again respondent No.1 invited request transfer applications for posting of Clerks at the said Branch. Incidentally, none opted for being posted there. Respondents had to post persons with more experience at the newly opened branch. According to the seniority list prepared by the respondents after S/Sh. Rajesh Bhatia and Ajit Kumar, petitioner was having greater experience than Sh. Roshan Lal Bhatia, who was also serving as a Clerk at Shimla. It is in these circumstances, respondents took the decision of transferring the petitioner from Shimla to Solan Branch. Respondent No.1 requested some one competent to handle the branch and deal with public with greater efficiency. 5. According to Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned counsel, petitioner’s transfer is in violation of Clause 6.5.3 of the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the employees and the management, which reads as under:- “The transfer of staff members who have completed 5 years of service in a branch/office and 10 years of service in a centre, shall be considered on the basis of branch/office/ centre seniority.” 6. The Clause is unambiguously clear. In the instant case S/Sh. Rajesh Bhatia and Ajit Kumar have not completed 5 years of service in a “Branch/Office”, even though they may have completed 10 years of service in Shimla Centre. Thus, it cannot be said that there is infraction of terms of the agreement entered into between the Union and the Management. 7. Transfer is an incident of service. It is for the management to decide whom to post and at what place services of the employee are to be best utilized. Scope of interference in writ jurisdiction in such like cases is now well settled. Except for in the cases of malafide which in the instant case are none or in the case of arbitrariness there can be no interference. From the record, it cannot be shown that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in any manner. I see no ground to interfere in the present petition. Interim order dated 7.10.2010 stands vacated. Respondents are directed to immediately relieve the petitioner who shall join the place of his posting within a period of one week from today. 8. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. April 06, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.