ft^R ^ HIGHCOURT OFJUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH:B!JLASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLESHRtS.R.NAYAK.CJ WRITPETITIC>NNQ,4960QF:20Q5 PEimONER N.D.Atulkar, S/o Late ShriDajiba Atulkar, Aged about 53 years, Occupation - Seroice, Presently working as Inchargs Dhflsional Manager, Industrial Plantation DMsion.Bilaspur (C,G.)R/oShanUNagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Vereus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Oepartment of Forest, Mantralaya,D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.) 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Lokash Plaza, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (G.G.). 3. J.S. Paikra, tncharge Manager (Mktg.) HeadOffice,Raipur (C.G,). Present: Mr. P. Diwaker.Sr. Advocatewith Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counselfor the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, leamed Dy. Govt. Adv., for the State/ respondentNo.1. Mr. Ranbir Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. P.S. Koshy, leamedcounsel forrespondent No.3. '' 1-1. ORDSR (Passed on 16th Deeember 200S) The petitioner is presently working as Incharge Dwisional Manager, Industrial Plantation Division, Bilaspur (C.G). Earlier, the petitioner was working in Panavaras Paroyojna Mandal, Rajnandgaon. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Raipur (C.G.),the second respondent herein, by his order dated21.01.2004, had transfeFred the petitioner from Rajnandgaon to Head OfRce atBilaspur. The petitioner, vide order'dated 29.10.2004 issued by th®second respondent, was giv^n SS ''^^t:/ thecharge of Deputy Manager, Bilaspur. Later, ttie second respondent, vide his order dated 23.019.2005, transferred the petitioner from Bilaspurto Kawardha Project Division, Kawardha. The petitjoner being aggrieved by the above order of thesecond respondent has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of tndia. (2) I have heard leamed counsel for the parties. (3) Mr. P. Dhivaker, learned Sr. Advocate, while assailing the validityof the impugned transferorder, urged the following grounds - (i)that the second respondent transferred the petitioner in breach ofpolicy ofthe State Govemment completely banning the transfers ; (ii) that the transfer order has resulted in prejudice and hardship to the petitioner; and (iii) that the petiUoner has been subjected to frequent transfers, which is arbitrary and unreasonable. (4) Onservice of notice, ttie second respondent has put in appearance through his counsel and has filedstatement of objections. In the statement of objections, it was ctaimed that the petitioner has been transferred in public interest and exigencies of service. It was also contended that the Government policy referred to bythe petitioner imposing ban on transfers is not applicable or made applicable to the employees of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. (5) It is well settled by a catena ofdecisions ofthe Apex Courtand High Courts that transferof a Gpvernment or pubtic servantwho is appointed to a cadre of transferable postfrom one place toanother.isanordinary incident of service and, therefore, does not result in any alteration of conditionsofservice to his disadvantage and therefore, transfer cannot be saitf-to be punitive in nature. Transfer is an incident of serviee and an K '^^i sSB Bl M Si :^^ \'-' -^ employee has no right to be posted ata particularplace. An emptoyee holdinga transferable post has no legat rightto jnsistfor his posting at a place of his choice. Transfer of public servant made onadministrafive grounds of pubfic interest should not be interfered with by the Courts unless there isstrong and pressing groundsrenderingthetransferorder illegalon the ground of violation of mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of ma/a ffcteoronthe groundoflackof authority. TheCourte orthe Tribunals cannot sit as appellate Court on the ordere of the transfers made on administrative grounds. The reason for this self-imposed resfraint is that the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or the Tribunalsarenot expected tointerdict the administrative system. (6) The Supreme Court in Gujrat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani , held that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place and thatfransfer cannot be evaded merely on ground of pendency of representation or difficulties. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar^, the Supreme Court held that the Courts should not interfere with fransfer orders which are made in public interest and on administrativegrounds unless theyare made in violation of mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of ma/a ftfeand that even where executive instructions are viplated, the Court ordinarily shalt not interi'ere and the concerned transferee employee should approach ttie higher-ups in the department for the relief. In the same decision, it is ateo held that even where the fransfer is effected on requestof employees to avoid hardship,the same should not be interfered with bytheCourts. 1-~ (1989)2SCe602 2. AIR 1991 SC 532 r Bli •.swwesssa In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas , it was held that no employee has any vested right toseek transfer to a place of his choice. Furthermore, in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Kourav4, the Apex Court held that theCourt cannotdecide relative hardship; it is for the administration toappreciate on a representation that may be made by the concerned employee and that hardship caused to an employee fromtransfer is not and cannot be a ground for judicial review of the transfer order. To the same effect is the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. H.N. Kirtania ,. In Abani Kanta Ray Vs.State of Orissa8, the Supreme Courtopined that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless It isshown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala lides ot infraction of any professed norm or principle goveming the transfer. In ChiefGeneral Manager (Telecom)Vs. Rajendra , theApexCourt handed down the opinion that in the absence of strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improperor unjustified, such an order should not be subjected to judicial review particularly when at the other place to which the transferee wanted to be retained or posted, there were complaints against him. (7) In the premise of the principles gpverning judicial review of the transferorders noted above, let usproceed to deal with the contentionsof the petitioner. Itis notthe case ofthe petitionerthatthe second respondent lacks authority to transfer him fromone plaee toanother place. Itis also not the case of the petiUoner that the second respondent has transferred him vindictivety or with a mata fide intention or as a punitiye measure. It is also 3. (1993) 4SCC357 5. (1989) 3 SCC 445 4. (1995) 3 SCC 270 6. .1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169 7. (1995) 2 SCC 532 = AIR 1995 SC 813, M^ ia fMM a ES Blll KRii EH ffilull psuBnduii sift qijM ejatjaiui 01 uoseaj pooB ou eAey SM 'a|6ue Aue luoj^ Buj^oo^ 'tssjsiuj ojiqnd sifl ui pue eoiAjss syi^o ss.iougBpcs 041 }esiu 0} eoe|d jeijioue o} soeid auo uoj,; Anusnbs^ asAoidius ue sjafsuej) jsAoidiue oiiqnd jo jsAo|diua 8}ei9 ejius^Bt sq pinoo uosdsoxe ON •sLuessqt inuue pueeipui.io uojtnigsuoo eiji^o gzg sioiyv-ispun JspJo J^SUBJ} peuBndiui eifl MSIASJ 01 ynoo siy} jo^ punojfi e sq }ou pinoo 'sseusiqeuosesjun pue sssuyeiiiqje y> spunojB uo pauiuspuoo sq 013|qei| jo spy e/eu/ Aq PSIUIB sje As4t }B4t Moys 0} Jsifljn^Buiy^uetnoifliM SJS^SUBJI ^o Aousnbs^ sjsy\| 'opU BIBUI Aq peiuiei jo SjnseaiueAipipuiA B si B4pjB e>| 01 jsuogiisd 8i|} j0 JS^SUBJ} pauBndiui 041 yeift pres sq touuea }j 'eypjeMe» 0} jndsei.ig luojj uieBe pue jndse|ig 0} uoeBpueufey 'iepueM eutoAojed sejeAeued tuoji'soiMi psjja(sueji SGM suii} }ueosj u.i jsuoi}j}sd sifl 'ssneosq 'Aiduiis 'iasunoo joiuss peujes) eifl ^o uoiiu&iuoo pjiyi pue isei syt ut »usui ou OS|B si sjsiij. 'jspjo je^suefl aifl^o MeiAaj lepipn.fjo^ punojB e oq (ouueo PUB }OU Sj JSJSUBfl LUOJ^ ssAo|diue ue d} pssneo diyspjeq leift pue ssAoiduis 43ns Aq epeiu sq Aeiu (eq} uoiteiussejdsj e uo siejosjddeo} uo.uejtsiuiuipE sifl joj si (I pue je.(suej}eifl p lunoooe lio ssAoidiue ue 01 pssneo diqspjey SA.4E|9J SIB eppep touueo ijnoo eifl '^(Bjdns) ABjnox -s's y> eseo syt ui ynoo xady sift Aq pisy sy •jauoiigsd si|} jo.( fesunoo joiuss PSUJBSI eijt p uosustuoo puooss siflui tjjeui Aue puy tou op OS|B | (9) •jepjo js^suefl pauSnduii sift ifliM ejepeiui o»SAoqe p8(ou spunojB sajin sifl ^o Aue }no Q^few 0} paijet <|jenn sei| jsuoiuisd aifl teifl pe3j}0u sq 0} spseu }i 'jsnBiusilt p MSIA }B4} u| "pn uieBjN SB^IA UGA eAfey qjeBsiueyiioP sesAoidiue 941 ot8|qeoi|dde speiujo eiqeoiiddeseM sjs^suefl uo ueq 6u.ioe|d lueuiujsAoo eq»^o uoisiosp ^oiiod 84} teyt MO^S o} ynoo eifl ejofeq |eys}eiu Aue peonpojd tou sey jeuongsd eift 'sjoiujetfljnj •}sod e|qeje^sue4 e Buip|oq }ou si si< }BI)} jsuogsed sifijo aseo 34} }ou BS'?" ..•%<i';::-i;i'f.";^(^^^;;n S:H:;^y!;'fcS, ,;?B^ tS^ ^Bj^:.^.l,,^,B^.,;,;;?;^ ^ (O