IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3486 of 2009. Date of decision: 1.10.2009 Sh.Ajeet Singh …. Petitioner Versus H. P. State Electricity Board & Ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Vijay Bhatia, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate vice Sh.Vinod Thkaur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st August, 2009 whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from Electrical Division, Ghumarwin to Electrical Division, Solan. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed six years at Ghumarwin. In fact, as per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was initially posted at Ghumarwin on 11.6.1985 and thereafter, was transferred to the nearby Sub Division, Bharari, District Bilaspur in March, 2003. Thus 2 he has been working in District Bilaspur in or around Ghumarwin since the last 24 years. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he is suffering from mental ailment and as such, it is not possible for him to live alone. The only document produced in support of this allegation is an OPD ticket dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the hospital of Mental Health and Rehabilitation, Shimla. No document has been placed on record to show that after September, 2006 the petitioner ever visited this hospital at Shimla for treatment. Another certificate is a certificate issued by Dr.Bhanu Kanwar, CHC, Bharari, District Bilaspur in which it has been stated that the petitioner is under treatment for APD and DBS from CHC, Bharari for the last three years. If the petitioner is suffering from a severe psychological disorder due to which he claims that he should not be transferred then we fail to understand why he was only treated at a civil dispensary and never shown to any psychiatric at Shimla or any other place. This certificate is undated and not supported by any material on record. In case the petitioner had been under treatment, he would have produced the OPD tickets of 3 his treatment at the hospital etc. No reliance can be placed on this certificate. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge October 1, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge