IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4012 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.06.2011 Pawan Kumar Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & others. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,J. ________________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sharawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is a practicing lawyer approached this Court with the following prayer: “The respondents No. 1-2 may please be directed to post respondent No. 3 outside his home sub-division, which is Rohru in this case & the earlier order of his transfer Annexure P-2 may kindly be directed to be complied with in letter & spirit, which is staring at the faces of the respondents & is giving a wrong signal to its employees in the State.” 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, in an attempt to substantiate the maintainability of the writ petition, stated that the same is also in the public interest, the fact remains that this is a service matter and it is a settled law that in service matters only the affected / interested parties alone are entitled to maintain the ...2... writ petition. Be that as it may. The learned Additional Advocate General has made available a copy of communication dated 27.6.2011, which is taken on record, wherein it is stated that the private respondent has already been relieved. Therefore, the writ petition is otherwise infructuous and dismissed. 2. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 29th June, 2011 (virender)