IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4900 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.11.2011. Som Dutt …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral): 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner, who is working as Panchayat Secretary, has laid challenge to the order dated 31st May, 2011 whereby he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Chamengi to Gram Panchayat Dhar Tikkari. 2. The main grounds raised by the petitioner are that respondent Yad Ram is the brother of Smt. Indira Devi, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Chamengi and therefore cannot be posted there. It is also contended that the petitioner has two young children to look after and therefore he may not be transferred from Gram Panchayat Chamengi. The petitioner has been working as Secretary 2 of the Gram Panchayat Chamengi since January, 2009. It is not disputed that Chamengi is only at a distance of 10 kilometers from Gram Panchayat Dhar Tikkari. The grievance of the petitioner is that his children are studying in 1st and 2nd standard and he has also to look after his father. These are not matters where the Court would intervene. It is for the administrative department to look into these aspects of the matter. 3. The only legal issue is whether in view of Rule 137 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 Shri Yad Ram could be transferred at a place where the Pradhan was his sister. From the facts proved on record, it is apparent that Smt. Indira Devi is not the real sister of Yad Ram but in fact is his first cousin. 4. Rule 137(1) reads as follows:- “137. Other officers and servants of Panchayats (Section 135 of the Act).- (1) The Panchayats subject to the availability of funds in the budget, may by a resolution propose to the Director or any other officer authorized, the number of employees required by it and salary and allowances to be paid to them and duties to be assigned to each of them. The Director or any other officer authorized by him may allow the appointment of such servants as he considers necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties with following conditions:- “No person shall be employed by a Panchayat, if he is a near relative (father, grand father, father-in- law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grandson, son-in-law, brother, nephew, brother-in-law, wife, 3 sister, sister’s husband, mother, daughter, niece, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law and husband) of any of its members or if he has been convicted of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude. No employee of the Panchayat shall be retained in service after he has attained the age of 58 years.” 5. A bare perusal of this rule clearly shows that the Panchayat can pass a resolution and propose to the Director that some employees are required by it and the Director can allow the Panchayat to appoint such employee on the conditions note therein. 6. It is more than apparent that the condition quoted in Rule 137(1) relates to the time of appointment. The purpose behind the said condition appears to be that members of the Gram Panchayat should not employ their near relatives and it is to prevent such nepotism and favouritism that the condition has been imposed. I am of the considered view that this condition will not apply where the person is transferred from one Panchayat to another. Even otherwise a cousin does not fall within the definition of near relative because in the condition itself near relatives have been defined in parenthesis to mean certain specified relatives and a cousin is not covered in the categories of relatives mentioned in parenthesis. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 1st November, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.