1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.825 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.4.2009 Smt. Shakuntala Mehta ….Petitioner Vs. State of HP & ors Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with Mr.P.K. Sharma 1 & 2 Addl.A.G and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For the respondent No.3 Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. Petitioner, who had been working as Superintendent (Home) in Balika Ashram, Mashobra, against a vacant post, for about 9 years, was transferred to Children, Home, Sundernagar, vide order dated 13.2.2009. Respondent No.3, who was working as Assistant Superintendent in the Home for Handicapped children at Sundernagar, on promotion, as Superintendent, was posted in Bal Ashram, Tutikandi. Lateron she was adjusted at Balika Ashram, Mashobra vide order dated 13.2.2009. By the same order the petitioner was transferred to Sundernagar, as aforesaid. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It appears that the aforesaid order dated 13.2.2009 was recalled and the petitioner was allowed to continue to work at Balika Ashram, Mashobra. Respondent No.3, who was affected by that order of recall and was not allowed to join at Mashobra, approached this court by filing writ petition No. 681/2009. In that petition, notice was issued to the State of HP on 16.3.2009 and this court passed an interim order that posting the petitioner in Balika Ashram, Mashobra, shall not be changed. The matter was ordered to be listed on 18th March, 2009, on which date learned Additional Advocate General produced an order dated 17th March, 2009 ( Annexure P-1) in the present writ petition, whereby the earlier order dated 13.2.2009, transferring the petitioner to Sundernagar and posting the respondent No.3 in her place, was restored, which meant that the petitioner’s order of transfer to Sundernagar issued on 13.2.2009 stood restored. It is against this order that the present writ petition is filed. 3. Grounds on which the petitioner has challenged her transfer to Sundernagar are; (a) transfer has been ordered after the model code of conduct came into force on account of declaration of election to the Lok Sabha; (b) petitioner has only two years left to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and the policy of the State Government says that an employee due to retire within two years, should not be transferred; (c ) petitioner’s son is studying in B.Com 1st year and his final examination is going on these days and the last paper will be held on 27th April, 2009; (d) daughter of the petitioner is also studying at Shimla and doing MA in English; (e) husband of the petitioner has been missing for the last 20 years. 3 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. In the face of the facts noticed here-in-above, petitioner cannot be heard to say that she has been transferred after coming into force of model conduct of conduct. As a matter of fact, petitioner was transferred on 13.2.2009 much before the model code of conduct came into force. In any case, the model code of conduct does not apply in the case of transfer of employees who are not connected with the election duty. Learned counsel submits that all government servants can be drafted for election duty and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not connected with election duty. We are not convinced by the submission for the simple reason that until a government servant is actually drafted for election duty, he/she cannot be said to be connected with election duty. 5. Petitioner’s retirement will take place on 31st May, 2011 or say more than two years after the date of passing of the impugned order. In any case, the petitioner has been in Balika Ashram, Mashora in the position of Superintendent of that Ashram for the last 9 years and we are of the considered view that an employee should not be kept in one position at one place for such a long time. 6. Next two submissions are also no grounds for staying, leave alone cancelling the transfer of the petitioner. Most of the government servants have children, studying in schools and colleges and simply for the reason that the study of the children would be affected, government servants cannot be kept at the same place for all times to come. 7. As regards the last submission, husband of the petitioner has been missing, according to her own averment for the last 4 20 years and by now she is supposed to have overcome the difficulties arising on account of her husband having gone. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present petition, therefore, the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main petition, CMP No.1446/09 is also dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ),J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 8th April, 2009(sl)