IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3681 of 2009 Decided on 14.12.2010 Shyam Lal ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 And 2. None for respondent No.3. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner is working as Statistical Assistant on the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2, particularly respondent No.2. He was posted as such in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Anni, District Kullu. He was transferred as such from there vide Office Order dated 3.10.2009, Annexure P-4, vice private respondent No.3. Admittedly, both the petitioner as also private respondent No.3 have since joined the respective places to which they have been transferred vice-versa, i.e Keylong and Anni. 2. The record reveals that the petitioner had earlier served in difficult areas, such as Chopal and Anni. He has now 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 been transferred to a tribal area and has since completed one year and 2 ½ months at Keylong. 3. Against the above backdrop, the petition has been filed on the following prayers:- “(i) Office Memorandum dated 10.4.2008, Annexure P-1, regarding guidelines/principles for effecting transfer policy issued by the Government of H.P. may kindly be quashed to the extent it lays down the guidelines regarding transfer in difficult/tribal area and more particularly clause 8 showing the list of tribal/difficult areas wherein though 15-20 Parganas of District Kullu has been declared as difficult/tribal area but Outer Seraj, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu and Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, which were earlier declared as difficult areas by the Government of Himachal Pradesh have been excluded. (ii) That the respondent-State may kindly be directed to reframe the transfer policy/office memorandum strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 1105/2006 on 27.8.2007. (iii) That the order dated 3.10.2009, Annexure P-4, passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 transferring the petitioner from difficult area to tribal area may kindly be declared wrong, illegal and may kindly be set aside, quashed. The respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to transfer the petitioner to a place other than difficult/hard/tribal area i.e normal area.” 4. In the reply respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions:- “It is submitted that the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment is implementing various schemes 3 for the weaker sections of society i.e. aged and infirm, children, women, SCs/STs/OBCs, etc. For effective implementation of programmes and schemes, offices at District, Tehsil and Block level have been set up. The petitioner belongs to Shimla district and when he was selected through H.P. Public Service Commission during the year 1998-99 on the post of Statistical Assistant, he was posted as such in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Chopal, Block, District, Shimla on 18.11.1998 i.e. within his own district. The petitioner joined in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Chopal on 21.12.98 and remained there up to 10.4.2001. On 11.4.2001 the petitioner was transferred to Child Development Project Officer office .Anni, Distri Kullu in public interest where he joined on 24.4.2001 and continued to work until his transfer to office of Child Development Project Officer Keylong on 3.10.2009. It is pertinent to mention here that in between the petitioner continued to improve his academic education and department has allowed him to appear in M.A. examination during the year 2000-01 which shows that department has always tried to help the petitioner. During the year 2009-10, the respondent No.3, who was posted in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Keylong, District Lahaul-Spiti after completion of his normal tenure of 2 winters and 3 summers in Tribal Areas requested for transfer to Kullu District from where he belongs. Although, there was a vacancy in Kullu District but as per State Govt. policy the incumbent transferred from Tribal Areas can only be relieved when his/her reliever joins there. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.3 also 4 filed CWP No. 3329/09 titled Shri Ramesh Singh v/s State of H.P. before the Hon’ble High Court for issuing directions to the respondents to relieve him. Hence, in public interest the petitioner who was working in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Anni, District Kullu since 2001 (i.e. having a stay of more than 8 years) was transferred to Keylong purely on administrative grounds, where the petitioner has already joined on 19.10.09 as per Child Development Project Officer, Keylong’s letter No. LS-1-155/09-ICDS-Estt.-2065, dated 26.10.09 annexed as R-1 and thus, the CWP filed has become in fructuous.” 5. In view of the above reply, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority that subject to the petitioner making a representation within a week from today along with copy of this judgment, the said respondents/competent authority shall consider the same within next fortnight in accordance with law and justice, by exploring the possibility that whether he can be adjusted against one of 3-4 places of his choice, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already served in difficult areas, after giving an opportunity of being heard, if so desired. 6. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 14th December, 2010. Lsp*