Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Though respondent No.6 stands served, however, none has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondent, hence, respondent No.6 is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed his transfer dated 29.01.2026, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from the Office of Executive Engineer Mandi, District Mandi, H.P to Development Block Drang, District Mandi, HP. The petitioner is serving as a Senior Assistant.¹Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred from Mandi to Drang without allowing him to complete his normal tenure, as he was posted at Mandi, upon his promotion as Senior Assistant, on 26.03.2025.

On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to the reply filed by the State and submitted that since 14.08.2019, the petitioner has been serving effectively at Mandi.

He submitted that from 14.08.2019 to 30.09.2023, the petitioner continuously served at Mandi for a period exceeding four years. Thereafter, vide transfer order dated 28.07.2023 , he was transferred to Bhuntar, but even during his posting at Bhuntar, he was deputed back to the office of XEN (RD) Mandi for approximately 20 days in a month and thus effectively even though, formally he was posted at Bhuntar, he continued to function from Mandi only.

Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that thereafter vide order dated 18.01.2025, the petitioner was permanently transferred back to the office of XEN, Mandi and upon his promotion vide order dated 26.03.2025, he was adjusted at the same station.

Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been serving at Mandi only since 2019, but for a short period, for which, he was transferred to Bhuntar, but during which period also, he continued to serve at Mandi on deputation basis, the petition is misconceived.

Learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts, as he has not disclosed in his writ petition that when he was transferred to Bhuntar, he actually served at Mandi on deputation basis.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the transfer of the petitioner was effected on the basis of a DO Note, therefore, the same was not sustainable, irrespective of the stay of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that filing of this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was serving at Mandi continuously since from the month of August 2019, but for a short period during which he was transferred to Bhuntar, during which period of transfer also, he effectively continued to serve at Mandi only, as has been mentioned in the reply of the State, the petitioner cannot agitate his transfer order in terms whereof, he has been transferred from Mandi.

Not only this, though, obviously the petitioner is holding a state cadre post, which is evident from the fact that from Mandi he was transferred to Bhuntar, which is in District Kullu, the petitioner now, in terms of the impugned order also, has not been transferred to a far off area, but just to Drung, which is at a distance of 30 to 32 Kms from Mandi.

This Court is really pained by the fact that employees like the petitioner want to stick to their posts of appointment permanently and they just do not want to move to any other place, where the posts exist, thus making it extremely difficult for the Department to manage its affairs.

A State-cadre employee cannot take it for granted that he or she has a vested right to serve within close vicinity of their areas of residences, as has become the habit of the employees g