IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1959 of 2011 Date of Decision : June 2, 2011 Nand Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. L. N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner was transferred from Lahaul Forest Division to Seraj Forest Division at Banjar in terms of order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-2). He wanted to continue to serve in Lahaul or other stations of his choice. He also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3275 of 2010 which was decided on 17.6.2010, wherein a direction was issued to the authorities to look into his request. In terms of order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P-8) his request was turned down. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 28.5.2011 to show that the petitioner has now Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 joined at the place of his posting. He joined on 28.5.2011. In terms of Annexure P-8 petitioner was asked to join the said place on 1.4.2011. However, he approached this Court and on 5.4.2011, by way of an interim order, this Court allowed the petitioner to continue to be posted in the Forest Division Lahaul subject to the availability of vacancy. 3. Petitioner has placed on record communication dated 18.5.2011 from which it is evident that disciplinary proceedings have been recommended against the petitioner. According to Mr. L. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, vacancy was available in Lahaul Forest Division and as such his continuance in Lahaul is pursuant to the orders of this Court. If this be so, then obviously no action on the recommendations made by the Divisional Forest Officer is to be taken. But however if vacancy was not available then it is always open for the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if so desired. 4. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. The question of transfer from Lahaul to Banjar has not been gone into in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not challenge for the same. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 2, 2011 (PK)