IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1062 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.7.2008 Amar Nath Dhiman …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: S/Shri P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and P.M.Negi, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________________________________________________ Per Surjit Singh, J.(Oral) With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The writ petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh. He was posted as Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Dhaneta vide order dated 24th October, 2005. Now he has been transferred to H.P. PWD Circle, Himirpur. The writ petitioner, who is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation in December this year, filed an original application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal seeking the quashing of his transfer order from Dhaneta, Sub Division to H.P. PWD, Circle, Hamirpur, ordered vide Notification 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 dated 5th March, 2008, copy Annexure P-1. He also made a prayer for grant of interim relief in the form of staying the operation of the said order pending disposal of the original application. The tribunal directed the Secretary (PWD) to consider the prayer made in the original application as representation and to pass speaking order taking into account the clause in the Government Policy regarding transfer of those officers/officials, who are about to retire within two years which says that endeavour should be made to give posting to such officers/officials in areas as convenient as possible, subject to vacancy. The Secretary (PWD) rejected the representation holding that the place where the writ petitioner had been posted was not convenient to him as it was almost equi-distant from his native place. The writ petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Secretary (PWD), again approached the tribunal. The tribunal has declined the writ petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief, even though earlier it had ordered the maintenance of status quo. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that even though clause (C) of para 9 of guiding principles for transfer of State Government employees, issued vide order dated 10th April, 2008, provides a government official who is about to retire within two years is to be given posting in an area as convenient as possible, yet the respondents have uprooted the petitioner from a place, which was convenient to him and shifted him to Hamirpur. The writ petitioner has nowhere explained as to how the place to which he has been shifted, vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, is not as convenient as the place from where he was shifted. It has been conceded during the course of hearing that the place from where the writ petitioner has been shifted as also the 3 place to which he has been shifted are equi distant from his native place. 4. In view of the fact that it has not been disclosed or explained how Hamirpur, which is a district headquarter, where the writ petitioner has been posted after transfer, is inconvenient compared to the place from where he has been shifted, it cannot be said that the order is contrary to the aforesaid finding principles. Therefore, the order of the tribunal denying interim relief to the petitioner calls for no interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this decision shall have no bearing on the merits of the original application, which is still pending. ( R. B. Misra ), J. July 14, 2008 (K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.