IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4126/2010 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010. Dhani Ram …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. . Whether approved for Reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S Chauhan Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the Respondent No.2 Mr. Dalip Sharma Advocate . Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against impugned order dated 17th July, 2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby the order dated 9th July,2010 transferring the petitioner from IPH Sub Division Sarahan to IPH Sub Division Nihri has been cancelled . 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is to retire in April,2011. He was posted in the IPH Sub Division Sarahan which falls in Kinnaur, which is Tribal area. He made a representation to the Government that he be adjusted at IPH Sub Division Nihri keeping in view his impending retirement. This request was allowed and the petitioner actually joined at Nihri on 12th 2 July,2010. Thereafter, on 7th July,2010 the impugned order was passed cancelling his transfer. In the reply filed by the State it has been submitted that after the order dated 9th July, 2010 had been passed, it came to the notice of the concerned authorities that Nihri falls within the Home Sub Division of the petitioner . As per the transfer policy annexure R-V no Assistant Engineer should be posted in his Home Sub Division. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that Nihri is not his Home Sub Division and the petitioner’s contention is that in the year 1972 when he joined service, he had clearly indicated that he belongs to village Kun, Illaqa Seri Batwara, Tehsil Sunder Nagar and this area does not fall within Nihri Sub Division. The petitioner has been confronted with the documents including Voter List and Pariwar Register which shows that he resides in Nihri Sub Division. He has admittedly constructed a house in village Shal falling within the jurisdiction of Sub Division Nihri. 4. Mr. T.S Chauhan learned counsel for petitioner contended that Home District will mean ancestral home of the employee and would not include the place where he may have constructed a house. I am not in agreement with this contention . The purpose behind incorporating the aforesaid condition in the transfer policy that no employee should be posted in his Home Division is that in such a plan the employee may come under the influence of people who are known to him. This should not only include ancestral village of the employee but will also include such 3 other place where he may have built a house and have an intention to reside permanently. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. The petition is accordingly rejected. 5. However, keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is going to retire in April,in case he makes a representation to the Secretary I& PH to the Government of Himachal Pradesh within two weeks to be adjusted at a place other than his Home Division, the same shall be considered on its own merits and decision thereon shall be taken within two weeks thereafter The petition is disposed of accordingly. 9th August,2010. (Deepak Gupta),J veena . 4