IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6114 of 2010 Decided on 01.12.2010 Ranjeet Singh ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. V.S. Chaudhan, Advocate. For respondents No. ! to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent No.4. : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner and private respondent No.4 are working as Senior Scale Stenographers in H.P. Public Works Department. They were posted at Palampur and Shahpur, respectively. As per the impugned order of transfer dated 18.09.2010, Annexure P-1, they have been ordered to be transferred vice versa. It is stated that the private respondent has since joined at Palampur. However, according to the petitioner, he is also continuing there. 2. The order of transfer has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he is at the verge of retirement and shall be superannuating in April, 2012 and as such his transfer is against the declared policy of the State Government, which stipulates that the employees who have 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 less than two years to retire, would not either be shifted or would be given place of posting of their choice, as far as possible. It is further stated that though the native place of the petitioner is near to Shahpur, where he has been transferred, yet according to him, he is building a house at Palampur, with a view to settle there permanently. If he is transferred at this stage, the construction work of his house would suffer badly. Apart from it, it is also stated that his wife is also not keeping good health and owing to the transfer at this stage, his entire family life would be disturbed. 2. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the private respondent that her son is a mentally retarded child, who is receiving education in a school for special children at Palampur and since there is no such school near Shahpur, she has been rightly re-transferred from Shahpur to Palampur, on her own request. 3. In view of the above, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to order that subject to the petitioner filing a representation to respondent No.2 along with copy of this judgment within a week from today indicating three places of posting of his choice, respondent No.2 shall look into the matter and take appropriate action thereon within two weeks thereafter. Till then, in case the petitioner has not already been relieved , he may not be disturbed. Copy dasti. 4. The petition as also the pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st December, 2010. 3 Lsp*