IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 1225 of 2008. Date of decision: 1.7.2009 Madan Lal Sharma .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Sh.R.M.Bhisht, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 6.6.2008 whereby he was transferred from IPH Division, Solan to IPH Division, Nauhradhar. The case set up by the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 Madhu Sood who was working as Junior Draughtsman in the office of IPH Division, Solan was promoted as Draughtsman Class-III. On 6.6.2008 vide the same order, the petitioner who had spent less than a year at Solan was transferred to Nauhradhar and the 2 respondent No.4 who had a long stay at Solan was adjusted there itself. The reply of the State is that one Smt.Sabu Devi, a resident of Surya Vihar, Khundipur, Solan represented to Hon’ble IPH Minister to adjust her daughter-in-law, Smt.Madhu Sood at Solan itself on extreme compassionate ground. In the reply it is stated that the compassionate ground was the death of the brother. We fail to understand how the representation of the mother-in-law could have been entertained in respect of transfer of respondent No.4. It is also not clear as to why it was necessary to retain Madhu Sood at Solan itself. However, we find that the petitioner has spent his entire service in Solan District itself. Stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 11th June, 2008 and he continues to remain at Solan. The petitioner right from 1986 till 2009 has either remained at Solan or at Nalagarh and has not been posted to any other place. We, therefore, while dis-approving of the manner in which the representation of the mother-in-law of the respondent No.4 was entertained do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner also. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief, IPH, Shimla to ensure that now the 3 petitioner and the respondent No.4 are both transferred keeping in view their length of service at a particular station(s). The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Stay order is vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge July 1, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge