JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following averments vide paras No. 3 to 8:- “3. That the petitioner initially joined service in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee as a Clerk on daily wages in the year 1995 and his services were regularized in December, 2006 and was posted at Delhi. 4. That in September, 2007 the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Shimla and after sometime he was transferred from Shimla to Solan. Again by order date 22.7.2010, Annexure P/1, the petitioner was transferred from Solan to Parwanoo where he joined duty on 26.7.2010. 5. That now again by order dated 25.11.2010, Annexure P/2, the petitioner has been transferred from Parwanoo to Solan. 6. That the impugned transfer has been effected in a short span of just about 5 months of the petitioner’s posting at Parwanoo which is against the transfer policy of the State Government as applicable to the respondent Board/Committee. 7. That no public interest is involved in transferring the petitioner in such a short span when the petitioner had barely settled down at Parwanoo with his family and rather, in the circumstances, the impugned transfer militates against the public interest. 8. That the impugned transfer is illegal also for the reason that it has been effected during the period when the Code of Conduct due to the Panchayat elections is in force in the entire State.” 2. On the above averments, the following prayer has been made:-“To quash the impugned order of transfer dated 25.11.2010, Annexure P/2, being arbitrary and illegal.” 3. In reply on behalf of respondent No.1, the following stand has been taken vide paras 4 and 5:- “4 & 5. In reply to these paras, it is specifically submitted that the contents, as relied by the petitioner, are wrong and incorrect, hence denied. It is further submitted that after regularizing the daily waged services of petitioner5 as Clerk, he was posted and appointed as such in Kisan Bhawan, Azadpur, New Delhi. The State Government had handed over the said premises to the respondent-Board for the purpose to run the affairs of Farmer Training Centre as well as a Farmers Guest House to facilitate the growers of the State, who used to sell their produce out side the State at Delhi. The State Government had handed over the said premises to the respondent-Board for the purpose to run the affairs of Farmer Training Centre as well as a Farmers Guest House to facilitate the growers of the State, who used to sell their produce out side the State at Delhi. However, it is further submitted that thereafter in pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the said premises was transferred & restored to the HPMC/Horticulture Department during the year 2007-08, being original lessee of the land from the Government of NCT of Delhi, over which the Kisan Bhawan was constructed. Hence, the staff of the respondent-Board, who was deployed at Delhi, had to be called back. Resultantly, the petitioner was called back and posted as such in the office of respondents-Board at Shimla and he remained posted as such w.e.f. 11.9.2007 up till his further transfer under the control of the respondent-Committee, vide order dated 22.7.2010. It is further submitted that due to peak apple season & its transportation across the Parwanoo check post to other States for selling, endeavors were to be made to deploy some additional staff at check post Parwanoo to prevent the menace of evasion of market fee at such vulnerable points in exigencies. Apple season remained in swing desperately during the intervening period from July to October, 2010. It is also suffice to say that the petitioner was one of the employees amongst others, who were deployed temporarily at check post, Parwanoo in view heavy work load during said period. This Hon’ble Court may kindly appreciate the facts, as is clear from the office order dated 22.7.2010 that the petitioner has not been allowed any traveling allowance qua temporary deployment. This fact clearly shows that petitioner was accommodated on his own request to transfer him from Shimla to Parwanoo for time being, because internal arrangements was to be made good to cater to need of additional staff. Needless to suffice here that no sanctioned post of clerk exists at Parwanoo check post as per staffing norms prescribed for the Agricultural Produce Market Committees. It was merely a temporary arrangement to cope up with the heavy work load during peak apple season. It may also be seen from the last pay certificate, issued to the respondent-committee. So the petitioner happens to be still appeared in the regular establishment of the respondent-Committee. It was merely a temporary arrangement to cope up with the heavy work load during peak apple season. It may also be seen from the last pay certificate, issued to the respondent-committee. So the petitioner happens to be still appeared in the regular establishment of the respondent-Committee. It may also be seen that despite office orders dated 26.11.2010, the respondent-Committee has further deployed the petitioner at check post, Parwanoo. Respondent-Committee has further deployed the petitioner at check post, Parwanoo. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner still appears in the regular establishment of the respondent-Committee, Solan. It is further pertinent to mention here that apple season has ended now and services of the additional staff is no more required at check post, Parwanoo, except official-in-charge. The work of office is suffering due to shortage of staff. Thus the respondents, being employer of the petitioner, need his services at head quarter of respondent-Committee. Hence the services petitioner cannot be retained any more at Parwanoo, due to these administrative reasons and compulsions, the petitioner was ordered to be retained back in the office of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Solan vide office order dt. 25.11.2010.” 4. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 is also adopted on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with a copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and justice within another one month by looking into the grievance of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Interim order dated 8.12.2010 to continue till then. 6. The petition, so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.