IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 490 of 2008 Decided on : 15.06.2010 Bishan Singh ..…Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies …… Respondents. Corporation Ltd. and another. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Bhavana Dutta, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner is working as Public Distribution Helper on the establishment of the respondents, particularly respondent No.2. At the relevant time, i.e on or about 11.3.2008, he was posted as such in the Retail Depot of the respondent- Corporation at Shillai, in District Sirmaur, when vide an Office Order of even date he was transferred to Wholesale-cum-Retail Shop, Shali (Pangi Valley) in District Chamba. Being aggrieved, he filed Original Application No. 543 of 2008, in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished). On transfer of the said O.A from the aforesaid Tribunal to this Court, it has been registered as CWP(T) No. 490 of 2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The petitioner has laid challenge against the impugned Office Order Annexure A-1 dated 11.3.2008, vide which he has been transferred from Shillai in District Sirmaur to Shali (Pangi Valley) in District Chamba, on three fold grounds. Firstly, that out of his total tenure of 21 years he had served in hard and difficult areas for a period of 17 years and as such as per transfer policy of the State Government, he was entitled to be posted at a place of his choice. Secondly, though he has been transferred, no substitute has been posted at his place. Thirdly, he being a low paid Class-IV employee has been transferred to a place situate at a distance of more than 500 K.M from the place of his present posting. Thus, he will be put to immense financial hardship. In addition to these grounds, it is also held out that though the petitioner has been transferred, yet many other persons with longer stay have not been touched. Apart from that 5-6 posts are lying vacant in District Sirmaur and the petitioner can very well be adjusted against anyone of those posts. 3. Per contra, in order to meet the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that during most of the period of service the petitioner was posted in and around Shillai within the radius of 20 K.M. Since the cadre to which the petitioner belongs is a State cadre, he cannot make any grouse for his transfer from District Sirmaur to Pangi Valley in District Chamba. In so far as apprehension of financial hardship is 3 concerned, according to her, this is an incident of service and again the petitioner cannot make any grouse on this score as well. With regard to non-posting of a substitute at the place of the petitioner, it is submitted that the impugned Office Order dated 11.3.2008, itself stipulates that Shri Rajinder Singh, Daily Wager, Retail Shop, Shillai, will look after the work of Retail Shop, Shillai, till further orders. In so far as the contention that 5-6 other employees with longer tenure have not been transferred and that some other posts are lying vacant, are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no material on record in support of these submissions. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records and taking into consideration the settled legal position that transfer is an incident of service, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a vested right to serve at a place of his choice. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on an over all view of the matter, particularly the fact that the petitioner is a low paid Class-IV employee, I am satisfied that the respondents in their benevolence would consider the request of the petitioner for being adjusted against some vacant post in District Sirmaur, in case he submits a representation to respondent No.1, within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, if so desired and take final decision in the matter within four weeks thereafter. 4 5. In the interregnum, interim order dated 14.3.2008, staying operation of the impugned Office Order dated 11.3.2008, shall continue till final disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.1, in terms of this order. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, as also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 15th June, 2010. Lsp*