JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. On 17th October, 2012, this Court had passed the following order: “The grievance of the petitioner is that she initially served from 1983 to 1991 at Keylong in District Lahaul and Spiti and thereafter she again joined at Keylong in June, 2009. On 9th August, 2012 she was ordered to be transferred from Keylong to Mandi and respondent No. 5, who was working at Nurpur, was ordered to be transferred in her place at Keylong. However, on 29th August, 2012, the order of transfer of Surender Kumarrespondent No. 5 was cancelled. Resultantly, the petitioner continues to be at Keylong and cannot leave Keylong till a substitute joins in her place. Respondent No. 2 shall file his personal affidavit stating therein why the transfer of respondent No. 5 was cancelled and shall also state that in case for some reasons respondent No. 5 has made out a justifiable case for cancellation of his transfer, then why no person was transferred in place of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 shall also state whether respondent No. 5 has ever served in tribal area or not.” 2. Pursuant to our directions, an affidavit was filed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was not complete and thereafter, on 06.11.2012, affidavit was filed. After perusing the affidavit, we had passed the following order on 06.11.2012: “We have perused the affidavit filed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Shimla and we are not at all satisfied with the same. In the affidavit, it is clearly stated that respondent No. 5 has never served in tribal/hard area. We, therefore, find no reason why transfer of respondent No. 5 should have been cancelled. The petitioner is directed to take dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 5, returnable for 26th November, 2012. The reply by the State be also filed by the next date of hearing. Along with reply, a list of all the Superintendent, Grade-II, working in the Department of Co-operations, shall be given in a tabular form and it shall be clearly stated which of the Superintendents, Grade-II, has never served in tribal/ hard area.” 3. Now, fresh affidavit has been filed. Reply-affidavit has also been filed. This affidavit depicts a shocking state of affairs. Now, fresh affidavit has been filed. Reply-affidavit has also been filed. This affidavit depicts a shocking state of affairs. Whereas petitioner has remained posted in the tribal area for eight years initially and thereafter three years again, some of the employees have never served in the tribal areas. 4. Time and again, we are coming across cases where people who are posted in tribal areas find it very difficult to move out of such tribal areas, though the policy of the Government is that a person is only required to serve for two winters and three summers in the tribal areas. 5. There are 25 Superintendents, Grade-II in the Department, as per the affidavit filed and out of them, 19 have never served in tribal areas. Only six persons have served in the tribal areas. We find that some of the Superintendents right from their initial appointments have remained posted at one station and have never been transferred. Other than those suffering from a heart problem, we see no reason why an able bodies employee of the Government, male or female, should not be posted to a tribal area. 6. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 1. That the petitioner shall continue to serve in the tribal area till 31st March, 2013. Thereafter, the department shall ensure that one of the persons, who has never served in the tribal area and has been stationed at one place right from the first appointment, i.e. never transferred from one place to another and who is less than 55 years of age, is posted in place of the petitioner. In case, no person is posted in place of the petitioner by 31st March, 2013, the petitioner shall be at liberty to hand over her charge to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahaul and Spiti at Keylong and report at Mandi on 1st April, 2013.