s BEFORE THE HON'BLE MP ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. JABALPUR -3^ ^ O.A.NO J2Q02 G.P.YADtI S/0 LATE SHRI RAMLAL YADU LABOUR INSPECTOR OFFICE OF Tffi ASST. LABOUR OOMMiSSICNER RAIPUR............................ VERSUS APPLICANT 1. STATEOFCHHATTISGARH Tl-ROUGH LABOLlR OOMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DBPARTMENT OF LABOUR, MANTRALAY D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPUR C.G. 2. ASSISTANTLABOUROOMMSSIONBR, KUTCHHARY CB3WK, RAIPUR. NONAPLICANT APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985. Ifc.i^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 2176 OF 2005 Petitioner : G.P. Yadu Versus Resoondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another Present : None appears for the petitioner. Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 9th Day of March, 2007) The petitioner, while working as Labour Inspector jn the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur was transferred to office of the Labour OfRcer, Raigarh on the same terms and conditions, vide impugned transfer order dated 21-8-2002 (Annexure A-1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur vide interim order dated 18-10-2002. granted stay of the impugned transfer order dated 21-8-2002 (Annexure A-1). 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and admjnistrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. Et is wetl settled principle of law that transfer is an incjdent of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view pubtic interest as well as administrative exigency. Thls Court has limited jurisdiction to jnterfere in .w^s.ium.&saa-Eaaiei the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passjng the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ____ - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash