•^ ^^ x^^>, -\-.;,<"o-:" y -<~' ff%w»bitBEiCH <$. ^y^> ..A - ^' •^''^ /•""^v o<" A/ "'\,t/y' o +iii'n^ ^ccT ^i^id^ y^n'M^Ko fsioii'M^ (E?.'TT.) W.P. (S) No. ^>^/ 2010 (S.B.) / ^T.sn^. ^\<f\ TTuTFEr ^tsra? cTc? W. Tfr. ^TFra?, ^3^ ^PWT 48 cr^, p|c||<fl - cTT^ ^f. 17 ^•r)T;Jld, f^TT- ^ti^TT (B'.TT.) R'ft.6 yCTTl'i^ld ?TT?Fr gKT - ^1. cr?<»|crc<;, fSTcTT—^tR?TT, ^"d^'i (^.TT.) 2. Sijfcl'^l^n^ Sri^Tft, (;?TuR?r) *i'-i-T;'ii(o, f^TcfT- ^.) .<<iR<pi<naI .yTCl'(qi<Tl'lul !rT^?T/^te -yiRchi sraTif?r a)^-^ 226/227 'HI'idt^ ^Tf^ETH | ffill!!i!!:l: :•% :^. ^' HIGH COBRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WiaTPETITION (S) No. 6627 of2010 M.I.Iraki. RESPQNDENTS ^VERSUS : ' „ : .^ -..- The State of Chhattisgarh & AnQther WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION •^ ;':- OE'INDIA'-1 •''.:,'••;;'/;11:';: --. :-' SB: Hon'tleShri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. :Present:' Shri Abdul WahahKHan, Advocate fbr the petittoner. Shri Ariin Sao, GoYemment Advocate for the State/ respondents. ,^' : • ; :;; • 1'.': • :1 :. ORDER fORAL) .(Passed6n29mdayOfMy,2011>^ I. Challenge; in this petition ,is fo tlie orderdated 31.08.2010 (Annexure: P/l) .whereby the petitipher, working as Rfivenue ;... Inspectpr ;at Revenue-Inspector Circte, Khadgawan; has been : ; transferred tp District: OfEce, Baikunthpur, on administrathre ^:l^'',:grounds.~l'!;: :','..'.,:'': '•, . ,: 1.;'';:1./'11 ./.,;;.^ '"';'' 2. ' Leamed coilnsel appearing for the petitioner submits thaf earlier, ;videorder'dated 31.05.2010 (AnnexureP/I),the petitioner was fa-ansferred &om Bharatpur to Manendragarh, on administratiye . , grounds; Thereafter, within a,period oi" 45 days, .yide order cfeted i.^ 18.Q8^1& <ADnexuie^p/2),^fhe ]:>etitioner wa from Manendragarh to Khadgawan. Being aggrieved,: the petitioner filedawritpetitionbeingW.P.(S)No. 5129/2010 whereinanorder :,,.ofstatusqyovraspassed6n 08.09.2010 aridno^^e giventofheprderdated 18.08^2010. Thereafter, the resppndent ' , authprities Uave agam, issued ,the impugned transier order dated 31.08.2010 ,(AimexureP/4)whereby the petitiorier has heen transferred ftom Khadgawan to Baikunfhpur^^d^ the earlier writ petition and the order of status quo was also ^ . pperatingm|favour^^^q^ the acfiQnflftUerespdndentaEuthoritiesisarbitraryandillegal.He further-submits tEat fhe;petift0ner is not being given the charge to ..,, y joinatanyplacenorheisbemgpaidthesalary. 3. On the pther hand, Shri Sab, leamed Goyemment Advocate ; . appearing; fbr.ftie-.State/respondenfs submits that the order dated •; ' 31.08.2010 (Annfixure P/4)was issued only after a represeiitation [ made by the petitioner. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order impugnedfaerein.' :; :;''':,-^ ^'1 ,.^' '" ',' :'':'/:\^'^ :.' :' -•''^ : .'^ 4. Heard leamed counsel fbr the parties, perused the pleadings and 1 ^ documentsappendedthereto.. - 5. 'During pendency of the; earlier writ petition i,e. W,P.(S) .1;, ^ ^5129/2010, tfaepietitionerpreferredarepresentat^^ y impugned order dated L8.08.2010. Qn cpnsideration of fais, represeiltation, the impugned order dated 31.08.201p was passed. ., This fact is ttotrebutted by the counsel for the petitipnerevenm ^ . ; ^ the course bf the^ argumeut Thiis, it cannot be held that the ; .^ authorities Uave overreached the order bf sfatu& quo passed in W.P.(S)No.5129/2010. ThisalsodoesnotcomewithiatUeambit ofma/ayKfeexerciseofpower..,, , f '- ^ : ~ ^'/••. 6.' ^The petitioner has flot challenged the impugned frahsfer order on ; ^ any ofher, permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mqfci ftde or - . ^ ;;!.. •r' ;. .('•".••"•:•; violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of eompetenjce oftheo:fficer,passmgthe impugnedorder. 7. It is wetl-settledthattransferi&anincidenceofservice and it is fbr : the employertp decide astowhere aparticular offieer/employee be posted, keeping ja view public interest as well as administrative exigency.TBisGQUTthaslmiitedjiu'isdictiontomterfere'w'iththe transfer rnafter except in the cases of proved /wa/a y?de, flon- competerice ofauthority passing the transfer order and not bemg in confbmiitywit&therulesandregulations.ThepetitioneiyemplQyee cannot be Rermitted to remam at one place fbrever. Under the provisions of serYice.rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administratree exigency. (See E.P.RoyappaY. State ofTamilNadu and dnother', Unwnoflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another , State.ofM-P. and another y. S.S.Kowctv cmd.other^ and Mohd. MdsiOod Ahmad'v State ofU.P&Qthers). ^ : 8. In yiew Qfjthe abpve, the petitibn is deyoid of merit and is ^ accordingly dismissed. Howeyer, the petitioner is at Bberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent authorities, if so advised, fbrlrelease ofhis salary for the period the brder ofstatus ; . quo was inqperation. • , '....1_^_ : .•'.;•.;• Sd/- Satish K. Agniiiotri Judge •1(1974j4SCC3 2^2004).4SCC 245 3(:1995)3SeC270 11 (2007) 8 SCC 150