IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.5125 of 2011 Decided on: August 25, 2011 Jagdish Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Trilok Jambal, Advcoate, for respondent No.5. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is working as a Water Works Clerk in Irrigation and Public Health Division at Ghumarwin, since July, 2008. He is aggrieved by the order, Annexure P7 dated 9.6.2011, by which he has been transferred to IPH Section, Bassi Division, Bilaspur, alongwith the post. His grievance is manifold. First of all, his grievance is that he has been transferred because of the influence of respondent No.5, who is Pardhan of Panchayat, upon respondents No. 1 to 4, officers of Irrigation and Public Health Department. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Second grievance of the petitioner is that his transfer has been effected because of his having made complaints against the Executive Engineer (respondent No.4), heading the Division at Ghumarwin. His next grievance is that when there are other clerks at Ghumarwin, who have been posted there for a longer period than him, instead of his being shifted, someone having longer stay, should have been shifted. 3. Also, it is the grievance of petitioner that the place, to which he has been shifted alongwith the post, does not have enough number of consumers of potable water, to justify the post of clerk at that place. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 4, in their reply, have denied the allegations of transfer having been made under the influence of respondent No.5 or the transfer having anything to do with the complaints made by the petitioner against the Executive Engineer. It is also denied that transfer has been made at the instance of respondent No. 4 Executive Engineer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Petitioner has been at Ghumarwin for almost three years, which is the normal tenure of a government employee at any station and, therefore, he cannot be heard to say that not he, but someone having longer stay, should have been shifted. It is the sole discretion of the employer É3É to judge and decide which employee should be transferred and who should be retained at a particular station, especially when normal tenure has been completed by all of them. 7. As regards the plea that there are only 500 consumers at the place, to which the petitioner has been shifted and there should be one clerk for 750 consumers, as provided in the norms of operation and maintenance (Annexure P2), suffice it to say that the norms say that there should be one clerk for 750 consumers, but that does not mean that there cannot be a clerk where the number of consumers falls short of the said number. In any case, an employee has no right to claim that because of there being not sufficient work at a particular station, he should not be posted there. 8. As regards the plea that transfer has been made under the influence of respondent No.5, Pardhan of the Panchayat, there is absolutely nothing on record, except the averment of the petitioner. Respondent No.3, who has made the transfer, is Superintending Engineer, stationed at Bilaspur. Respondent No.5 is Pardhan of a Panchayat in Ghumarwin Tehsil of Bilaspur District. It has not been indicated, in the petition, how the said respondent, who has ordered the transfer of the petitioner, is under the influence of respondent No.5. É4É 9. Coming to the allegation that petitioner being Pardhan of Employees Union has made complaints against respondent No.4 i.e. Executive Engineer of the Division at Ghumarwin and because of that petitioner had been got transferred by him, learned counsel places reliance upon the order of transfer itself. The order has been endorsed to Executive Engineer, i.e. respondent No.4, in which there is a reference to the letter of Executive Engineer dated 1.6.2011 and telephonic talk dated 9.6.2011. Complaints, which the petitioner allegedly made against respondent No.4, are Annexures P5 and P6. Annexure P5 is dated 4.6.2011 and Annexure P6 is dated 9.6.2011. Both these complaints are subsequent to the date of the letter of Executive Engineer, i.e. respondent No.4 which is 1.6.2011, to which reference has been made in the endorsement. That means, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Executive Engineer (respondent No.4) had written to the Superintending Engineer for the transfer of the petitioner, that was much before the making of complaints by the petitioner against him (the Executive Engineer). 10. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is dismissed. August 25, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.