IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 3371 of 2011 with CWP No. 4889 of 2011. Reserved on: 28.06.2011. Decided on: 15.07.2011. ___________________________________________ CWP No.3371 of 2011: Jagdev Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. CWP No.4889 of 2011: Bhag Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 3371 of 2011. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 4889 of 2011 and for respondent No.4 in CWP No.3371 of 2011. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 in both the petitions. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, both the petitions were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by a common judgment. However, to maintain clarity, the facts of CWP No.3371 of 2011 have been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner, Jagdev Singh joined at Government Primary School, Navangram on 6th December, 2008. He was transferred from Government Primary School, Navangram to Government Primary School, Dhundhan on 5th May, 2011. He made a representation pursuant to which his transfer orders were cancelled on 10th May, 2011 vide Annexure P-3. In the meantime, respondent No.4 who was serving at Government Primary School, Dhundhan was permitted to join his duties at Government Primary School, Navangram on 6th May, 2011. 3. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that cancellation of transfer order dated 10th May, 2011 be implemented by permitting him to join his duties at Government Primary School, Navangram, as C.H.T. The case - 3 - of respondent No.4, Bhag Singh is that since he had joined his duties at Government Primary School, Navangram, the transfer order dated 5th May, 2011 could not be cancelled on 10th May, 2011. 4. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since her client’s transfer order has been cancelled on 10th May, 2011, he should be permitted to join back at Government Primary School, Navangram. She then contended that her client has been transferred from Government Primary School, Navangram to Government Primary School, Dhundhan though he had worked there only for a period of 2 years and 5 months. She lastly contended that petitioner’s son is undergoing treatment at P.G.I., Chandigarh and it will be difficult for him to take his son from Dhundhan to P.G.I., Chandigarh. 5. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General have vehemently argued that the transfer order of petitioner, dated 5th May, 2011 has been cancelled on 10th May, 2011. 6. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that since his client has already joined pursuant to order dated 5th May, 2011 at Government - 4 - Primary School, Navangram, the transfer order could not be cancelled on 10th May, 2011. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned Advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to tabular statement whereby the respective stays of the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been given. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. Petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Navangram to Government Primary School, Dhundhan on 5th May, 2011. He had worked at Government Primary School, Navangram only for a period of 2 years and 5 months. It is evident from the medical prescription slip placed on record that his son is undergoing treatment at P.G.I., Chandigarh. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned Advocate has submitted that the ailment of petitioner’s son has not affected his studies. 9. Petitioner on the basis of illness of his son has made a representation against his transfer order dated 5th May, 2011 and the same was cancelled within 5 days, on 10th May, 2011. Since the transfer order of the petitioner stood cancelled, he was required to be permitted to join back his duties at Government Primary School, Navangram even though respondent No.4 had already joined on 6th May, 2011 at Government Primary School, Navangram. Mr. Dinesh - 5 - Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also argued that no reason has been assigned why the order of transfer has been cancelled on 10th May, 2011 once the same was made on 5th May, 2011. It can be gathered from record that the reason for cancelling the transfer of petitioner is the ailment of his son. He needs regular medical check-ups at P.G.I., Chandigarh. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate that since petitioner’s son is doing well in studies, the transfer order ought not to have been cancelled. It goes to the credit of the child who is doing well though suffering from serious ailment, which requires regular check-up from P.G.I., Chandigarh. 10. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also argued that the petitioner has always remained in and around Navangram since his initial appointment. The fact that the petitioner has remained posted in and around Navangram, was always within the knowledge of the employer. It is for the employer to see where the incumbent should be posted. However, while doing so, the genuine difficulties faced by the employees cannot be over-looked. The distance between Navangram and Dhundhan is more than 75 Kms. It will be difficult for the petitioner to take his son for routine check-up at P.G.I., Chandigarh from Dhundhan. - 6 - 11. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1443 of 2011 titled Nagesh Versus HPSEBL & others, dated 3.5.2011. In this case, the petitioner was transferred from Dalhousie on 3rd March, 2011 and he joined at Bakloh on the same day. His transfer order was cancelled on 16th March, 2011. In that case, the petitioner was aggrieved by the cancellation of his transfer order within a fortnight. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred and at his own request, the transfer order has been cancelled. The request made by the petitioner was acceded to and the transfer was cancelled on 10th May, 2011. It is settled law that the transfer order should be passed on the basis of administrative exigencies and public interest. The cancellation of transfer order of the petitioner is on the basis of his representation, made due to the ailment of his son. Respondent No.4, Bhag Singh had only worked at Dhundhan as C.H.T. for a period of 10 months alone and while transferring him vice petitioner, his short stay was condoned. There is no reason assigned in order dated 5th May, 2011 why respondent No.4 has been transferred after condonation of short stay and why the petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of 3 years. - 7 - 12. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also argued that his client has been transferred to Government Primary School, Navangram since his wife is undergoing treatment at E.S.I., Hospital, Parwanoo. However, he has not placed any contemporaneous material on record to support his contention. Moreover, even as per the pleadings, his wife has already been operated upon. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, CWP No.3371 of 2011, titled Jagdev Singh versus State of H.P. and others is allowed. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to permit the petitioner to join his duties as C.H.T. at Government Primary School, Navangram. CWP No.4889 of 2011, titled Bhag Singh versus State of H.P. and others is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 15, 2011. (sck).