CWP No. 3614 of 2011 29.6.2011 Present: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Petitioner stands transferred from the office of R.T.O. Dharamshala to the office of R.T.O. Una. Petitioner Sh. Ramesh Chand has been satisfactorily discharging his duties as Driver at Dharamshala. There is nothing on record to show to the contrary. He joined at Dharamshala in January, 2009, as per averments made by him but according to the respondents on 25.6.2008. There is no dispute that he has not fully completed his normal tenure of posting of three years. It is short by two months. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that petitioner stands transferred vice private respondent who has chosen not to come forward and contest the present petition. As per office report dated 25.6.2011 he stands served. Undisputedly private respondent No. 3 is a contractual employee and petitioner is a regular employee. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3437 of 2010, titled as Anuradha Garg versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.6.2010, relying upon the policy framed by the State has held as under:- “5. It is clear from the office memorandum extracted above that the contract employees become eligible to make a request for transfer on completion of five years tenure at the present place of posting. Equally, the department on -2- administrative grounds is entitled to transfer a contract employee after five years of tenure at one place. But the contract employees are not entitled for transfer as of right, so as to disturb the regularly appointed employees, even when the regularly appointed employee has completed the normal tenure. It is squarely clear from the office memorandum extracted above that the eligibility of a contract employee for transfer will depend on two conditions; (i) the same will be considered only on need basis and (ii); the same will be done only on administrative grounds. These are to be read and understood and applied qua the contract employees and not qua a regular employee to be transferred so as to accommodate a contract employee. However, it needs to be also clarified that in case a regularly appointed employee has to be transferred on any administrative grounds, and in case there is a vacancy available on account of such transfer, it would certainly be open to the contract employee to point out such vacancy remaining unfilled and in that situation that request has to be considered. In other words, the norms do not entitle a contract employee to make a request for transfer by transferring a regular employee. Therefore, it is made clear that the eligibility of the contract employee to request for transfer and consideration of that request will depend only on availability of the vacancy. In the instant case, there is no vacancy available to accommodate 4th respondent since the petitioner has been working in the present place. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside. However, it is made clear that in case there is a post lying vacant, wherein 4th respondent is interested to get his transfer, it will be open to him/her to point out such a vacancy and that request in the light of what we have held above shall be considered by 2nd respondent within one week.” -3- 2. The ratio hereinabove is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case in favour of the petitioner. Consequently the order of transfer (Annexure P-1), dated 16.5.2011 is quashed with immediate effect. 3. Petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 29, 2011 (PK)