IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3874 of 2011. Date of decision: 18.7.2011 ___________________________________________________ Jagdish Ram …. Petitioner. Versus Managing Director, HPPCL, & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 3. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order dated 21.4.2011 Annexure P1 whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from Sundernagar to Sujanpur Tihra. 2. Normally, this Court would not interfere in a transfer matter, since this is an administrative function of an employer, unless some allegations of mala fide etc. are made. However, there are peculiar facts of this case. The petitioner is at the bottom rung of the hierarchy of employees being only a beldar. ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 3. Secondly, the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition had only 12 months left to superannuate and now he has only 10 months to retire. Transfer affects every employee, but the petitioner who is at the bottom rung will definitely face both emotional and financial difficulties. Even if it is presumed that the respondents need the services of a beldar at Sujanpur Tihra, there is nothing which prevents the respondents to post such an employee as belder at Sujanpur Tihra who has sufficient service left. It is not appropriate to transfer a person who has only 10 months to retire that too against his wishes, because he probably would remain on leave and also work less. The petitioner had also submitted a representation which has not been decided, but a perusal of the representation shows that the petitioner had lost two members of his family just a few days before his transfer and that his daughter-in-law is undergoing treatment at the BBMB, Hospital, Sundernagar. 4. Keeping in view all the aforesaid factors, I am of the considered view that this is a case which calls for interference in writ proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of transfer dated 21st April, 2011 is quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue working as beldar at Sundernagar till his retirement. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 18, 2011. (Krn Guleria) 3