1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No. 5244 of 2011. Date of Decision: 4th August, 2011. Daulat Ram …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). From the impugned order dated 30th June, 2011, (Annexure P-6), it is quite evident that petitioner has been working at Sub Division, Theog for last more than ten years, as such no ground for interference in the impugned order of transfer dated 28th April, 2011 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner from Theog to Kupvi, is made out. 2. Petitioner submits that post at Kupvi also stands filled up by another person. However, this fact is not evident from the impugned order dated 30th June, 2011. If the post at Kupvi is vacant, petitioner shall immediately join there. 3. However, it is equally true that petitioner is to retire on 31st May, 2013 and as such in terms of the Transfer Policy, subject to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 availability of vacancy and suitability, employee can be posted at a place of his choice. Petitioner is also suffering from ailment, which fact is evident from Annexure P-2. In any event, respondent No. 2 shall consider the petitioner’s case for adjustment at the stations where posts are lying vacant, in terms of the Transfer Policy, keeping in view the date of his retirement and health. Petitioner has already indicated his stations of choice, which is evident from the impugned judgment dated 16th June, 2011. Decision shall be positively taken within a period of ten days from today. 4. With the aforesaid observations the petition stand disposed of. Let an authenticated copy be supplied by the Court Master to the petitioner, today itself. (Sanjay Karol) Judge August 4, 2011 (krs)