IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 7729 of 2011-J. Decided on 2nd December, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-3, whereby he has been transferred from I & PH Section Behli to I &PH Section Kangoo. 2. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has remained posted in his home Sub-division/Section since 1992 till regular appointment in 2007 and the issuance of impugned order dated 3rd September, 2011 (Annexure P-3). It is true that the petitioner has been working in his home Sub Division/Section since 1992, but now he has been transferred to a place called Kangoo, which is at a distance of 150 kms. from I & PH Section Behli. Petitioner belongs to a lowest strata of the society and is a Class-IV employee. Normally, the persons belonging to Class-IV category should not be transferred to a distant place until or unless there is extreme public interest or 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - administrative exigency. There is no material on the record to suggest even remotely what public interest would be achieved by transferring the petitioner to a place, which is at a distance of 150 kms. from his present place of posting. It is also laid down in the guidelines framed by the respondent-State that as far as possible, Class-IV employees should be posted near to his/her native place/home town. 3. In view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 03.09.2011 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondent-State to transfer the petitioner, but not beyond a distance of 25 kms. from his present place of posting. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 02, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `