JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. AS per the office report, private respondent No. 6 stands served. None has entered presence on her behalf, hence, she is proceeded ex-parte. 2. HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, who is working as a Female Health Worker in the Department of Health, State of H.P., was transferred from HSC (Block Tiara) to Primary Health Centre (P.H.C.) Darini vide order dated 18.3.2013 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter on her request, keeping in view the attending circumstances, petitioner was adjusted at PHC Tiara. Now, in terms of the impugned order of transfer dated 21.8.2013 (Annexure P-2), petitioner, within a short span of five months, stands transferred from Tiara to Sub-Cente, Balehra (Block Jawalamukhi). 2. The respondent-State has justified its action by giving the incumbency position of the petitioner as also private respondent. From the reply, we find that the State is unable to justify the transfer of the petitioner within a short span of five months. Neither any administrative exigency nor any public interest is exhibited. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, transfer of the petitioner is actually effected on the basis of a D.O. note of political executive, which fact is not denied by the respondent-State in the response. This action of the State, in our considered view, is contrary to the decision dated 5.7.2013, rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 801/2013, titled as Sanjay Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, alongwith other connected matters. 3. THAT apart, we find that the State itself had accommodated petitioner in May, 2013 and there was no justifiable need and necessity of transferring her from Tiara to Balehra. In such circumstances, we quash the impugned order of transfer dated 21.8.2013 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No. 4 shall immediately take the joining of the present petitioner who stood relieved w.e.f. 21.8.2013. 4. WITH these observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.