<pw c^^ HIGH C00RT Or CHHA'mSGAmi AT BILASPUR Writ Petifcion (St No. 6788 pf 2008 PBTITSONBR RBSPONDENTS Deepak Amold, S/o Late Shri A. Araold, aged about 58 years, preseutly workiag as Incharge Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Water Resources Departaient, Water Resources Division, Surajpur, Distdct Ambikapur (CIihattisgarh) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Water Resources Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG), 2< The Additional ^ecretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Water Rcsousx;es Departoient, DKS B'hawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3, Shri G. P. Pandley, 'Assistaiit Engin-eer (Desigu) Office of Engiiieer m. Chief, WTater Resoxirces Departoient, Sihawa Bhawaii, Civil Liaes, Raipiir (C.G.) Aad Wr£tPetitioa ^ (S1 No. ^638 ^®.f2QQ9 1 I1'NOIER : Deepak Amold, S/o Late Shri A. Ai-aold, aged about 58 years, presently workiag as Incliarge Executive Engiiieer, Water Resources Departisient, Water Resources Department, Water Resources Division, Surajpur, District Anibikapur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDBNTS : 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Water Resources Departoieiit, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 5. The Additionai. Secretai^^, State of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Departaient, DKS Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.). 6. Shri G, P. Pandley, Assistaat Engiaeer (Design) Office of Engineer ia Chief, Water Resouilces Department, Sihawa Bhawaii, Civil Liaes, Raipur (C.G.) (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'HTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. A^iihotri, J.) Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri N. K. Vyas^ Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. w 2 OKDER (Passed on this 19th day of March, 20091 1. The petitioner has ffled Writ Petition (S) No. 5788/2008 challenging the order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by fhe Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner, who was workiag as Incharge Executive Engiaeer, Water Resources Department, Division Surajpur, Distdct Surguja was taraasfeiTed aad posted as Assistaiit Engiaeer (Design) ixi the office of Executive Engiaeer, Water Resources Department, Division Surajpur. 2. By the iaipugned order dated 10.10.2008 total niae officers were transferred and posted. The respondent No. 3 Shri G. P. Pancey was transferred Iroin Raipur and posted at Surajpur. The challenge to the iaipugned order by fhe petitioner ia fhis petition is that fhe petitioner has been traasferred from the present place ofworkmg witldn ta¥o inoiifhs aad twenty days. He is five years senior as Assistaat Eugiaeer to fhe respondent No.3 aad he should not be coinpeUed to work under his junior. 3. The efiect aad operation offhe irapugned order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) was stayed by fhis Coiirt vide order dated 17.10.2008 grantmg Mberty to tlie respondents/State to recti^^ fhe niistake, ifaay. 4. Subsequenfly, the respondents/State by order dated 27.1.2009 { Annexure P/l ia W.P.(S) No. 638/2009), having considered fhe represeiitation of fhe petitioner amended/modi&ed fhe above stated impugned order dated 10.10,2008, fhereby fhe petitioner has been traasferred aiid posted as Assistan^t Engmeer (Design), Office of fhe Superiiitendiag Engineer, Shyam Baro.ai Project Circle, Anibikapur, VK?^^r^' ^. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 638/2009 challenging the order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P/l). The grievaiice of fh.e petitioner ia fhis petition appears to be that fhe respondent No.3, who was brought from Raipur to Surajpur aiid was posted m place of fhe petitioner by order dated 10.10.2008, has been protected tliereby he is retamed at Soorajpur, whereas the petitioner has been transfen'ed to Ambikapur ia Shyam Baaiai Project Cn'cle. 6. It appears fhat fhe petitioner had llled fhe first petition chaUeuging fhe order dated 10.10.2008 inosfly on fhe grouud that he should uot be coiapelled to work under his junior. By tibie iateriin order dated 17.10/2008, while stayiag fhe effect aad opei^tion of the order dated 10.10.2008 fhis Court granted Uberty to fhe respondents/State to consider and rectify fhe nustake, if aay, ia fhe traasfer order. 7. It further appears fhat the respondents/State taldxxg into consideration fhe grievance of the petitioner has passed the order dated 27.1.2009, whereby fhe earlier order dated 10.10.2008 has been amended/modi&ed aiid fhe petitioner has been posted m fhe ofllce of Supermtending Enguieer, Shyain Bamai ProJect Circle, Ambikapur. Thus, the Writ Petition (S) No. 5788/2008 has become infructuous, 8. The subsequent order dated 27.1,2009 was also stayed by this Coxirt by mterim order dated 2.2.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 638/2009. Thus, by virtue of fhe stay orders flie petitioner is working oa the place of posting at Surajpur, where he was posted prior to fhe order dated 10.10.2008. ^'.^..•"^.. /^"^ •"< 'c '^r:-.^ c"' 9, As tar as fhe second petition is couceraed, by the impugned order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexiire P/l) the petitioner has not been toraiisferred out of fhe district. He has been traiisterred froia one ofl&ce and posted to fhe ofh.er office withia fhe same district. The petitioner caanot question his traiisfer aad posting all fhe tmie. It is for fhe eiuployer to post a particular oificer/einployee to a particular place, lookmg to tihie administrative exigency aad pubic puipose, 10. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits fhat fhe subsequent order dated 27.1.2009 has been passed just to accoininodate fhe respondent No.3. In a case of traiister and posting when one employee is ti'aiisferred aiid posted at a particular place, fhe other eiaployee is bound to go. The allegation fhat fhe petitioner has been traasfeiTed aad posted to a dttferent ofilce to accoinniodate fhe respondent No.3, is not well founded. On peinsal of fhe order it is apparent fhat fhe respondents/State has passed fhe subsequent order to ensure that fhe petitioner is not posted zuider his juiiior ofilcer. In fhat respect, the order cannot be faulted with. Apart firoin flie subxxiission fhat fhe order has been passed to accoxn.inodate fhe respondent No.3, fhe petitioner has failed to estabMsh fhat fhere was aay nialafide. 11. In view of the above, I do uot tiad any substaiice m fhe arguxaents advaaced by learaed counsel appearmg for fhe petltioner. Thus, W.P.(S) No. 638/2009 deserves to be dismissed. 12. In view offhe foregoiag, bofh fhe petitions are disinissed, No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur