JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Petitioner and respondent No.2 both are serving as Ayurvedic Medical Officer (‘AMO’), a Class-I Gazetted post falling under the State Cadre. Both of them are pitted against each other in their desperate effort to remain stationed within Shimla town. This plum posting is currently being enjoyed by both of them for years together as if it is their vested right to remain in Shimla. 2. Dispute in the writ petition: (i) Respondent No.2, serving as AMO in Government Ayurvedic Health Centre (‘GAHC’), Kaithu (Shimla), District Shimla, was ordered to be transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, vide notification dated 29.08.2023. Respondent No.2 did not join at the transferred station, i.e. GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla. (ii) Respondent No.1 issued another notification on 30.09.2023 whereunder, in place of respondent No.2, the petitioner, serving as AMO at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, was transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla. Consequently, in the same notification respondent No.2, who was originally transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, was adjusted at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, i.e. in place of the petitioner. (iii) Feeling aggrieved against his transfer from GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, petitioner instituted this writ petition on 10.10.2023 seeking following substantive reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.1 and thereby allow the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting i.e. Ayurvedic Health Centre Jakhu (Shimla), District Shimla, H.P. in the interest of justice.” (iv) The writ petition was listed before the Court on 11.10.2023, when it was adjourned to 12.10.2023, and thereafter to 13.10.2023. The requests for adjournments were made for the petitioner. On 13.10.2023, submissions were made for the petitioner that he was victim of manipulation and manoeuvre by respondent No.2, who had been able to stall her transfer from Shimla to Sanarsa on the basis of political interventions. For clarifying these allegations, original record pertaining to the impugned transfer order was directed to be produced before the Court on 17.10.2023. Following order was passed on 19.10.2023, stayed the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1):- “Records perused. There is prima facie material on record to show that the impugned notification/office order dated 30.09.2023 is result of a U.O. Note issued from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister. Following order was passed on 19.10.2023, stayed the impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1):- “Records perused. There is prima facie material on record to show that the impugned notification/office order dated 30.09.2023 is result of a U.O. Note issued from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister. But there is nothing on record to suggest that what is the basis for issuance of such note. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there is a complaint against the petitioner. However, the record does not reveals that the U.O. Note, as noticed above, has been issued, taking into consideration the alleged complaint against the petitioner. Petitioner is able to make out a prima facie case. The impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023 ( Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Notice be issued to respondent No. 2, returnable on 16.11.2023. Steps be taken within three days. In the meanwhile, respondents may file detailed reply. Record returned.” (v) In view of interim order dated 19.10.2023, petitioner is presently continuing to serve at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla. To a query of the Court that once the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 has been stayed and resultantly, petitioner is to discharge duties at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, then at which place respondent No.2 is discharging her duties, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 apprised that she is also serving as AMO at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla. Learned Deputy Advocate General has apprised that there is only one sanctioned post of AMO at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla, where both the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are serving. 3. Submissions: (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is bad in eyes of law as :- (i)(a) It was respondent No.2, who was transferred as AMO at GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla under notification dated 29.08.2023. (i)(b) Instead of joining at GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, respondent No.2 obtained DO Note No.65943 dated 08.09.2023 and DO Note No.70732 dated 26.09.2023 issued by the local MLA of the concerned constituency. (i)(c) On the basis of aforesaid two DO Notes, notification was issued on 30.09.2023 cancelling respondent No.2’s transfer to Sanarsa, posted her at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla and to make way for her posting at Jakhu, Shimla, the petitioner, who was serving as AMO at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, was transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, i.e. the place where respondent No.2 was originally transferred to. (i)(d) Sanarsa-a remote/rural area though is in District Shimla but adjacent to District Kinnaur. Petitioner has already served at GAHC Chagaon, District Kinnaur, a tribal area for five years w.e.f. 27.07.2013 to 16.07.2018. Petitioner having served for five years in tribal area should not have been transferred to Sanarsa, District Shimla. (i)(e) Reference was also made to the reply filed by respondent No.1, conveying that petitioner’s transfer had been effected after the approval of competent authority, as a complaint had been received from a resident of Jakhu that petitioner is irregular in performing his duties, remains absent from GAHC, Jakhu, causing inconvenience to general public, who have to wait for long hours for getting treatment and at times have to go back untreated. Portion of respondent No.1’s reply highlighted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is as under:- “2. That the transfer of the petitioner has been affected only after the approval of the competent authority as a complaint has been received from. the resident of Jakhu that the petitioner is very irregular in his duty and most of the time he is absent from duty which is causing inconvenience to the general public especially to the senior citizens who have to wait for long hours for getting the treatment and some time have to go without the treatment. The copy of the complaint made by the resident of the area is annexed as Annexure R-II. Hence the present petition needs to be dismissed on this ground alone.” With reference to above, attention was also invited to the undated complaint appended along with the reply at Annexure R-II, which had been referred to in above extracted para of the reply. In the aforesaid complaint, only the name of the complainant has been given without his address. Reference was also made to Annexure R-2 appended along with the rejoinder. This document dated 22.09.2023 is from the District Ayush Officer, Shimla and is in the form of an inquiry report on the aforesaid undated complaint (Annexure R-II). As per the inquiry conducted by the District Ayush Officer, the complaint against the petitioner was found baseless. The report also states that no person named as complainant in the aforesaid complaint even resides in that area. As per the inquiry conducted by the District Ayush Officer, the complaint against the petitioner was found baseless. The report also states that no person named as complainant in the aforesaid complaint even resides in that area. In view of above, it has been contended that respondent No.1 has sought to justify the transfer of the petitioner on the basis of a complaint, which had been inquired into and was found baseless, prior to the issuance of impugned transfer order. Prayer was accordingly made for quashing the impugned transfer order. (ii) Learned Deputy Advocate General highlighted the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that petitioner an Ayurvedic Medical Officer enjoys status of Class-I Gazetted Officer, forms part of State Cadre and is liable to be posted anywhere in the State; He had been transferred on the basis of a complaint, enclosed with the reply as Annexure R-II. It was also submitted that respondent No.2 had been adjusted at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla, her’s being a couple case, as her husband is in Government service, therefore, she is eligible for concession flowing from Clause 5.4 of the applicable Transfer Policy. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner has been in District Shimla for more than five years, therefore, was transferred to Sanarsa. There is no illegality in the impugned transfer order. (iii) Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that:- (iii)(a) After issuance of the impugned order transferring the petitioner from GAHC Jakhu, Shimla to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla, the petitioner obtained a UO Note on 07.10.2023 from the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister for his adjustment ‘at RAH, Chotta Shimla against longer stay of Dr. Dimple Bhatti or AHC Totu, against longer stay of Dr. Shilpa Dadwal.’ The UO Note was not being given effect to. The petitioner, therefore, instituted the present writ petition. On listing of this writ petition on 10.10.2023 and 11.10.2023, adjournments were taken for the petitioner, though on 19.10.2023 interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that since the petitioner himself is beneficiary of DO Note, therefore, he cannot be heard to complain against impugned transfer order on the ground that the same was issued on the basis of DO Note. This writ petition, therefore, deserves dismissal on this score alone. Reliance in support of this submission was placed upon Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. This writ petition, therefore, deserves dismissal on this score alone. Reliance in support of this submission was placed upon Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , CWP No. 757 of 2023 decided on 11.04.2023 , Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 65 of 2020 decided on 04.01.2020 and Arun Vashisht vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , CWP No. 5011 of 2022. (iii)(b) Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that respondent No.2 had been facing certain adverse family circumstances, therefore, she was not in a position to comply with order dated 29.08.2023 that transferred her to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla. Inasmuch as respondent No.2 had two school going daughters, she herself was suffering from chronic fracture of left ankle-joint and her husband was posted as State Programme Officer atNational Health Mission in Shimla. In view of these factors, she made a representation on 30.08.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister with request to cancel her transfer to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla and to adjust her at ‘RAH, Chotta Shimla or Directorate of Ayush or in around Shimla (Urban).’ This representation was accepted by the Competent Authority, which resulted in issuance of impugned order dated 30.09.2023 adjusting respondent No.2 at GAHC Jakhu, District Shimla, i.e. at the place of the petitioner, and consequently, petitioner was transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 4. Consideration: Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. (i) The admitted factual position that comes out from the pleadings, the record and submissions made for the parties is that respondent No.2, posted at Kaithu, Shimla, was initially transferred to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla on 29.08.2023. She did not join at the said place. Instead she represented on 30.08.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for adjusting her in Shimla (Urban), more specifically at RAH, Chotta Shimla or Directorate of Ayush. Based upon her representation, impugned order was issued transferring respondent No.2 from Kaithu, Shimla to Jakhu, Shimla and to accommodate her at Jakhu, petitioner was transferred from Jakhu to Sanarsa. Instead she represented on 30.08.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for adjusting her in Shimla (Urban), more specifically at RAH, Chotta Shimla or Directorate of Ayush. Based upon her representation, impugned order was issued transferring respondent No.2 from Kaithu, Shimla to Jakhu, Shimla and to accommodate her at Jakhu, petitioner was transferred from Jakhu to Sanarsa. (ii) Petitioner’s specific allegation that respondent No.2 had obtained two DO Notes for cancelling her transfer from Kaithu, Shimla to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla and for her adjustment at the place of the petitioner at Jakhu, has not been denied either by respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 in their respective replies to the writ petition. It is, thus, evident that respondent No.2 is beneficiary of DO Note. (iii) It also comes out from the writ record that subsequent to his transfer to Sanarsa, petitioner had also obtained a UO Note for his adjustment at RAH Chotta Shimla/AHC Tutu, it is another matter that the aforesaid UO Note was not implemented. (iv) The tone and tenor of respondent No.1’s reply seems to be unduly tilted in favour of respondent No.2:- (iv)(a) Respondent No.1 has justified the transfer of the petitioner to GAHC Sanarsa, District Shimla on the ground of there being a complaint preferred against him that while posted at GAHC Jakhu, Shimla, he was not performing his duties diligently, remained absent, patients had to wait for long hours for getting treatment and sometimes had to go back untreated. There was no justification for this aspect to have figured in their reply as the complaint had been inquired into by respondent No.1 and found baseless prior to the issuance of the impugned order. (iv)(b) The reply further states that petitioner had been transferred to GAHC Sanarsa as he had completed his normal tenure in Shimla. Respondent is the State-a welfare employer, who is not expected to discriminate between its employees. In case, according to respondent No.1, petitioner had completed his normal tenure at Shimla and thus, required to be transferred outside Shimla, then the same yardstick was to be applied to respondent No.2 as well, which would be apparent from following incumbency position of the parties:- Incumbency position of petitioner:- Date Station Time period 24.07.2013 – 16.07.2018 AHC Chagaon, District Kinnaur 5 years 18.07.2018 – 25.05.2021 ACH Sankatmochan, Shimla 2 years 10 months 25.05.2021 – till date AHC Jakhu, Shimla About 5 years and continuing. Incumbency position of respondent No.2:- Date Station Time period 27.08.2011 – 09.04.2012 CH Sandhole, District Mandi 7 months 10.04.2012 – 07.10.2016 CHC Mashobra (Shimla) 4 years 6 months 08.10.2016 – 26.11.2016 AHC Satlia, Mashobra, Shimla. 50 days 26.11.2016 – 18.08.2017 AHC Thaila (Mashobra) Shimla 9 months 18.08.2017 – 06.12.2018 Directorate of AYUSH, Kasumpti, Shimla 1 year 4 months 06.12.2018 – 24.02.2021 AHC Chakker, Shimla 2 years 2 months 24.02.2021 – 29.08.2023 AHC Kaithu, Shimla 2 years 6 months 29.08.2023 – 30.08.2023 AHC Sanarsa Did not join 30.09.2023 – till date AHC Jakhu, Shimla 1 year 6 months and continuing. The above tables placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by learned counsel for other parties clearly indicate that petitioner has remained posted in Shimla proper w.e.f. 18.07.2018 till date. Similarly, respondent No.2 has remained posted in Shimla proper w.e.f. 18.08.2017 till date. These two Ayurvedic Medical Officers do not have any vested right to remain posted in Shimla proper. They are holders of Class-I (Gazetted) post and belong to State Cadre. They are liable to serve elsewhere in the State also. Petitioner, though has served for five years in tribal area from 24.07.2013 to 16.07.2018, nonetheless having remained posted in Shimla for the last about 7 years, he is required to serve in other areas as well. Similarly, respondent No.2 but for initial period of about seven months of her service spent at CH Sandhole, District Mandi (stated to be her home town), has remained posted in District Shimla. She has been serving in Shimla proper for the last about 8 years. Respondent No.2 is not the only lady employee in the State with adverse family circumstances. She cannot claim any vested right to cling to postings at Shimla proper. Having two school going daughters, fracture in leg and spouse working in State Government (as State Programme Officer, National Health Mission) cannot be justified as such circumstances calling for endless compassion from respondent No.1 to apply Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy in her favour till the duration of her entire service career. Besides petitioner and respondent No.2, there are other AMOs serving in different parts of the State, who may long for posting in the State capital for several reasons. State cannot adopt a partisan attitude towards blue eyed and turn blind eye to others. Besides petitioner and respondent No.2, there are other AMOs serving in different parts of the State, who may long for posting in the State capital for several reasons. State cannot adopt a partisan attitude towards blue eyed and turn blind eye to others. In fact during hearing of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed on record following table that reflects a pathetic state of affairs in the respondent-Department where AMOs are continuing to discharge their duties for years/decades together in District Shimla and even at Shimla proper: Sr. No. Name Present place of posting Time since in or around Shimla Years in or around Shimla 1 Dr. Dimple Bhatti RAH, Chotta Shimla 2010 15 2 Dr. Geetanjali Sood Jathiya Devi, Shimla 2012 13 3 Dr. Jagriti Sankatmochan, Shimla 2014 10 4 Dr. Vijay Laxmi Negi RAH, Chotta Shimla 2015 10 5 Dr. Meena Lower Bazar 2016 9 6 Dr. Parul Sharma Anu Ambapur, Shimla 2016 9 Respondent No.1, as a welfare employer is also expected to take a conscious call for transfer of cluster of AMOs enjoying their posting in Shimla proper, District Shimla, for years together, but of course in accordance with law, applicable guidelines & transfer policy. 5. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. However, taking note of the incumbency positions of the petitioner and respondent No.2, who have remained posted for years together not only in District Shimla but in Shimla proper, respondent No.1 is directed to a take fresh call in the transfer of these Ayurvedic Medical Officers for their posting outside District Shimla in accordance with law and as per applicable transfer policy. This be done within two weeks. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 7. List for compliance on 25.04.2025.