IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 1507 of 2008. Date of decision: 8.7.2009 Mani Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Thakur, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Ms.Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner who is working as Beldar in the Horticulture Department by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 13th June, 2008 whereby he has been transferred from Harabag in Tehsil Sunder Nagar in District Mandi to Pingla in Tehsil Sarkakhat in District Mandi itself. As per the grounds set out in the petition which have not been denied by the respondents, the petitioner served in Kilba in District Kinnaur which is a tribal area from the year 2002 till 24.11.2006, i.e., for about four years. As per the transfer policy then existing, on transfer from a hard/tribal area, an employee had a right to be transferred to one of the stations of his choice. It obviously meant that such employee should be retained at the station of his choice for a reasonable period. The petitioner joined Narla sometime in November or December, 2006. But barely six months later, the petitioner was transferred from Narla to Harabag which is also within District Mandi. He joined at Harabag and on 13.6.2008, i.e., barely one year and one month after his transfer to Narla, the petitioner has again been transferred from Harabag to Pingla in Tehsil Sarkaghat. The petitioner challenged this order and the said order was stayed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal on 27th June, 2008. Normally this Court does not interfere in the administrative matter especially transfer matters but here we are dealing with the case of a Beldar who is at the lowest rung in the hierarchy of employees in the State. He is lowly paid employees for whom transfer can have grave punitive effects. The stand set up by the State is that the petitioner has not been transferred but has only been adjusted within District Mandi on administrative grounds and public interest. Other than using the phrases “public interest” and “administrative grounds” nothing has been stated in the reply as to what is the public interest and what is the administrative ground for transferring a Beldar from one project to the other. The petitioner within a span of two years from his transfer from a tribal area has been transferred three times. One can imagine the agony and the adverse effect this will have on the petitioner as well as his family members. The respondents in their reply have not pointed out any specific reasons for transferring the petitioner other than making a vague assertion that the transfer has been made in public interest and on administrative grounds. We find that the transfer of the petitioner is totally against the transfer policy and the petitioner has not been transferred in the public interest and there exist no administrative grounds to transfer him. Therefore, the transfer order is quashed. We also find that the petitioner is due to retire in May, 2010. We make it clear that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Harabag, District Mandi till his superannuation. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Stay order is vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 8th July, 2009 (S.S.Thakur) (m) Judge