IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2343 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.06.2011 Roop Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): No rejoinder sought to be filed. 2. The petitioner who is working as work-charge Beldar, has been deputed vide order Annexure P-3, on WSS Bekar Shiva I&PH Section Bagsaid. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a low paid employee and has been transferred to a distant place of about 50 K.M. This is a valid ground and this should be considered by respondent No. 2 in the representation to be filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, setting out the grievance, if any, in the said representation. During the course of arguments only, learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground that the Assistant Engineer was not competent to pass the order, but this ground has not been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition filed before this Court. The petitioner may also take up the said ground in the representation to be 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 filed before respondent No. 2, who shall look into the assertions made in the representation and will decide the matter in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. In case, no person has been posted in place of the petitioner, he shall be permitted to work at the present place of posting, till his representation is decided by respondent No. 2. 3. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ), June 01, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3