Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.15160 of 2008. Dated of Decision: July 15, 2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pushpa Devi. ……… Petitioner. Versus HIMUDA and another. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta,J (oral) : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th June, 2007, whereby she has been transferred from HIMUDA Sub-division Baddi to Legal Cell, HIMUDA, Shimla and one Bansi Ram Sharma (respondent No.2) who was under transfer from Sub-division Bilaspur to Legal Cell, Shimla has been adjusted in her place. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this transfer is arbitrary and has been made - 2 - malafide with a view to accommodate respondent No.2. The petitioner has also submitted that a number of persons with longer stay at Baddi have been retained there. The petitioner also alleges that her husband is employed at Baddi and as a couple case, she may be retained there. HIMUDA, in its reply has very candidly admitted that respondent No.2 has been adjusted at his request at Baddi. According to the respondent, a representation was received from respondent No.2 that he being a heart patient may not be transferred to Shimla and may be adjusted at any place which is a warm place and at a lower altitude. Respondent No.2 was under transfer from Sub-division Bilaspur to Legal Cell, Shimla, but due to his illness, he was adjusted at Baddi. The petitioner is working at Baddi since 26.12.1998 and thus she has completed more than 10 years there. No employee has a vested right to stay at the place of his/her choice for such a long period. Insofar as the argument of the petitioner being adjusted at Baddi as a couple case is concerned, said argument is without any force. The petitioner has spent 10 years at Baddi. In case she is transferred, her spouse can ask for - 3 - his transfer to Shimla. It is not necessary that both the spouses should be retained at one station throughout their career. The last argument is that the persons with longer stay at Baddi have been retained there. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer any person. This court is only to see that the action is not arbitrary. The petitioner has spent more than 10 years at Baddi and could have no grievance against her transfer. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Stay order is vacated and all pending applications are accordingly disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge July 15, 2009. (Pds)