\ ^'.. :^^'r~^. E;f<?a'toAy.....9^./r1«/ri....;.'Jt<'i bf:w A-C(< \ (^w ^ , - BEPCRE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIflUNAE. BENCH ^T RAIPUR,^ C.Q^ Priginal AppllcalioB yQ'.-sl^W^VtlMill- 1. Vishna Kamar Gupta» Age 40 years. Son of Shrl Uday Rara Gupta, Patv»ari»Posted at P.C.CTo.16, Dhamtarl/ Post offlce ward, Ama Talab Road, Dharatari. (C.G.) 2. Ramesh Tlwari, Age 40 years, Son of S'nrl Govlnd Prasad Tiwarli Patwarl» Pested at P.C.No.10, Ehakhara, Tshsll Karud, Distrl.ct Dhamtari. .3. .Ramesh Kumar Lahre^ Age 35 years» SOR of Shrl Ghasi Ran Lahre, Pa'twarl» Posted at P.C.No.i 15/49, Ha-tkeshar, Tahsll Dhamtari* Dlstrlct Dhamtari* 4. Sutchdeo Dhruw, Soa of Shrl B.R.Ohruw Patwarl/ Pos-ted at P.C.No.23, Kharenga, Tahsll and D-istrlct Dhamtar-i (C.G.) 5. Chinta Ram Soni, Son of Lafce Mansba Rara Sonl, Patwarl, Posted at P.C.No.16, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtarl <C.G.) «• Versus State of Chhattlsgarh, Threigh - Secre'tary^ Department of Revenue, Ministry of Revenue, Man'tralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan» Raipar (Chhatfelsgarh) APpllcants 6 ^ ^ 88 02 88 mhe Collector, Dhamtari Dlstrict, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Sub-Dlvlsional Officsr, (Revenue), Dl strict Dhamt.ari (Chhatti sgarh) ^. Non-Applic ants APPLICATIOH UNDER SBGTION 19 OF STATS ADMINISI'RATIVS TRIBUNSL ACT 1985 S^"^^. ; ...:...'^.....:..',^^.;^ft;yw't;^T<' ?-?§S%^K C.J. 1. Vishiiu Kuiaar Gupta, Age 40 years, Son of Shri Uday Rain Giipta, Patavai-i, Posted at P.C. No.16, Dharatari, Post Of5ce Ward, Aiua Talab Road, Dhamtari (C.G.j 2. Rainesh Tiwari, Age 40 }7ears, Son of Shri Govind Prasad Tiwari, Pafavan, Posted at. P.C. No.IO, Bhakliara, Tafasfl Kui-ud, District Dhamtari. 3. Ramesh. Kum.ar Lahre, Age 35 years, Son of Shri Ghasi Ram Lahi^, Pafavari, posted at P.C. No. 15/49, Hatkeshar, Talisil Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari. 4 Suldideo Dhruw, Sou of Sbri B.R. Dhniw, Patwaii, Posted at P.C. No.28, Kharcnga, Tahsfl aad District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. Chinta Rain Soiii, Son of Late Maasha Ram Soni, Pativari, Postecl at P.C. No.16, Tahsfl Kui-ud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretan7, Depai-tinent of Revenue, Mioistry of Revenue, Maiitralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The CoUector, Dhamtari District, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub-Divisional Of&cer, (Revenue), District - Dhamtari, (Chliatdsgai-h) Present : Shri Alok Bakshi, Counsel for tlie petitioners. Shri Utkai-sh Venaa, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Sbri Ashok Swamlcar, Counsel for fhe Intervener. 92 The foUowing oral order of the Court was passed by (1) The Writ Petitioners have assailed the traasfer orders iiapugned ia this Writ Petition inaiiily on two grounds namely (i) tliat fhe trausfer orders are taiated liy laalafide on fhe part of transfeiTBig authority ia order to help M/s Ghaashyani Yadav.and Jawaliarlal Dewailgaii who are Prantiya Sangaihan Mantri and District Secretary of Chhatlisgarh Patwari Saiigh respeclively and (ii) the traasfer'order has resulted in hardship to thein. - (2) We have perused the petition avenuents. (3) The allegations of inalafide, ifwe may say so, as vague as it could be. Except vaguely stating that fhe impugned traasfer orders are issued m. order to accoinruodate M/s. Ghaiishyam Yadav aiid Jawaliarlal Dewaiigaa, tlie petitioners have utteriy faUed to lay aay factual niatrix niuch less required factual inatrix to bring hoine malafide. Secondly, the petitioners have not stated at whose :?- 93 mstajice ia the adininistratioD., fhe iiapugned orders are passed in order to favour M/.s. Ghaiishyain Yadav and Jawaharlal Deivangaii. Therefore, the groiuid of nialaiide is not luade oilt on th.e basis ofwhich we could possibly step ui uuder Article 226. (4) This takes us to Uie next argument based on atleged hardsl'up resiilted consequent upon the inipugned transfer order. It is weU teaowu that eveiy transfer order results in sonie hardship aad iRcouvenience. Nevertheless, it is expected that a public servant should bear that hardship and iiiconvenience ia the pubUc iaterest aiid in fhe iuterest of service for the State. Be that as it inay, it is weU settled by a catena of decisions of fhe Suprenie Court aud fhe High Coiuls that in a given case, if a transfer results ia hardship to an eiaployee, fhe einployee should inake a representation to the State eniployer for his consideration aud it is •for the State eniployer to appreciate the hardship of fhe employee Emd pass appropriate orders, aad it is not for the Court to appreciate tlie relative hardship of einployees iu tlie inatter of u'aiisfers. It is also well settled principle that it is legaily permissible for the State eiiiployer to tran.sfer an eiaployee in order to accoinm.odate auotlier einployee after appreciatiug the hardship of the latter, brouglit to his notice by way of representation etc. A transfer order cannot be challenged successftlllv unless it is shown fhat the order is issued by aii incouipetent aufliority or that tiie m.aadatoiy statuton- rules are violated or that the traasfer ordcr is vindictive aiid is vitiated by maiafide. None of tlie above grounds ai'e inade out to step iii under Article 226 to inTerfere with 'tlie iiapugned orders. (5) The Writ Petition is devoid of nierit$ and it is accorduigly disinissed. No costs. —- ——^-—— Sd/- S.R.Nayak ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge RAO