IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.3580 of 2011. Decided on: June 1,2011. Ratti Ram …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for respondent No.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Learned counsel for respondent No.4 adopts the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has been transferred from Development Block, Sangrah to DWDA, Solan. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had remained posted at Sangrah for a period of only 11 months. 3. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have pleaded as under: “That it is pertinent to mention here that the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan forwarded complaint against the petitioner for non-cooperation in Block Level Banker’s Committee meeting at Sangrah on 20.10.2010 as a result of which review of progress made by the various banks in Sangrah Block as per various targets fixed to them could not be and the workshops which were organized by the bankers on various schemes ended without fruitful results and the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, observed that the attitude shown by the petitioner, the then Block Development Officer Sangrah, tentamount to misconduct and dereliction of duties on his part and recommended departmental action against the petitioner. 2 Accordingly, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and subsequently, he was transferred from Development Block Sangrah, District Sirmaur and posted as Technical (Livelihood) in District Watershed Development Agency (DWDA) Solan.” 4. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was transferred to the present place on administrative grounds and not for other reasons. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred, when he was serving on secondment, without his consent which was necessary. This question shall be examined by respondent No.1 in the representation to be filed by the petitioner within two weeks, which is to be decided within another one month from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. Dasti copy. June 1, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.