IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 6611 of 2011-G. Reserved on: 03.11.2011. Decided on: 08.11.2011. _______________________________________________ Dilver Singh. … Petitioner. Versus HPSEB Ltd. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Haminder Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was transferred vide Annexure P-1 on 8th April, 2011 from P&T Division, Sundernagar to M&T Sub- Division, Bilaspur. He joined his duties at Bilaspur. Thereafter, the petitioner has again been transferred to P&T Division, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Solan vice respondent No.3, Shri Prem Lal, who has been retained at Sundernagar vide Annexure P-2, dated 11th August, 2011. 2. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has not been permitted to discharge his duties as Junior Engineer for the normal tenure of three years at Bilaspur and his transfer to Solan is actuated with legal mala fides. He then argued that the petitioner has been transferered to Solan to accommodate respondent No.3. 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo and Mr. Haminder Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the issuance of Annexure P-2, dated 11th August, 2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was transferred to Bilaspur from Sundernagar on 8th April, 2011. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the Bar that his client has already joined his duties at Bilaspur. However, he has now again been transferred to Solan vice respondent No.3. It is evident from the contents of Annexure P-2, dated 11th August, 2011 that respondent No.3 was, in fact, under transfer from M&T Division, Sundernagar to P&T Division, Solan vide office order No.336 dated 1st August, 2011. - 3 - 6. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 has argued that since the petitioner has remained posted in and around Sundernagar, he was required to be transferred in the public interest to Solan. 7. It is neither borne out from Annexure P-2 nor from the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 why the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Solan. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer an employee. However, the power of transfer is coupled with duty to act judiciously. In the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Solan just to accommodate respondent No.3. It is also clear from the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 that the petitioner had also served earlier at Sundernagar, Jogindernagar, Bhabanagar, Banikhet and Bilaspur. It is not borne out from the record that the petitioner has remained posted in and around Sundernagar, as argued by Mr. Shashi Shirshoo and Mr. Haminder Chandel, Advocates. The transfer of the petitioner is actuated with legal mala fides just to accommodate respondent No.3 at Sundernagar. The petitioner has been transferred to Bilaspur from Sundernagar only on 8th April, 2011 and he has again been transferred to Solan vide Annexure P-2, dated 11th August, 2011. The petitioner is 56 years old and in normal circumstances, an employee, who is on the verge of - 4 - retirement, should be retained at the same place or a station of his choice to mitigate the hardships in old age. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, dated 11th August, 2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties at Bilaspur till the completion of his normal tenure. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 08, 2011. (sck).