(3? 'gisal:t'KKFH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.) No. ^U^ /2008 PETITIONER ^ ^Ml^ xffx^^"' y ^^\^'lr ^'^'^y •^^ ..^" ;^" ^; »•>^" ^ '^' RESPONDENTS : Chaman Lal Devangan, S/o. Ude Lal Devangan, aged about 54 years, Ex- Htter-cum-Mechanic, Water Works, Mohara, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Alok Sur, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Chief Secretary, Local Self Government (Urban) D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Durga RamSahu, S/o. Prem Lal Sahu, aged about 55 years, Pump Attendant, Tanka Ghar, Rajnandgaon WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS. AGAINSTTHE RESPONDENTS y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AF^ Writ Petition (StNo. 2439 of 2008 Petitioner Chaman Lal Devangan Versus Respondents Alok Sur and others ^' Post for Judgment on <SArday ofJanuary, 2010. A, Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (St No. 2439 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Chaman Lal Devangan VERSUS Alok Sur and others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) ^m Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.l. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.2, None for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Delivered on thisj2^"day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/7), whereby the petitioner, who was working as Mechanic-cum-Fitter at Water Works House, Mohra has been transferred to Ram Krishna Nagar Pump tTouse. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Mechanic-cum-Fitter at Water Works, Mohra, in Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon for the last about 30 years. By letter dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation about the shortfall of one carbon cylinder, which was replied by the petitioner on 21.1.2008 (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, being aggrieved by the allegation, the petitioner sought permission to take appropriate legal action against Shri Durga Ram Sahu. He served a legal notice dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure P/6).Thus, the impugned transfer order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/7) has been passed with malafide intention. The impact of which is that the petitioner has been transferred on a lower post, which amounts to demotion of the petitioner from the post of Mechanic-cum-Fitter to the post of Pump Attendant. 3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents denied the apprehension of the petitioner that by ^::^--^-v.s^^ ::^"A. '^ ^-g- the impugned transfer order the petitioner has been transferred to a lower post or he is demoted in any manner or he may suffer any financial loss. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. By the impugned order as many as sbc persons have been transferred from one place to other, on administrative basis. There is no mention in regard to anybody, including the petitioner, that they have been transferred to some posts, other than the posts on which they are already working. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be misconceived. The petitioner has failed to point out any such ground in support of his contention that he has been transferred to a lower post which may carry lower emoluments. Admittedly, the petitioner was working at Mohra for the last 30 years. 6. The petitioner was working as Mechanic-cum-Fitter at Water Works House, Mohara from where he has been transferred to Ram Krishna Nagar Pump House, in the same capacity. There is no change in his designation and as submitted by the respondents, there is no change in the pay scale and salary also. The petitioner has further not adduced any evidence to indicate that there was any reduction or change in his post of Mechanic-cum-Fitter and he has been demoted to any other post. Thus, it is a clear case of transfer from Water Works House, Mohra to Ram Krishna Nagar Pump House, without any demotion or reduction in salary. So far as other facts, with regard to the allegation and counter allegation and legal notice, are concerned, that is not the subject matter in this writ petition, as the transfer order has not been passed on account of other facts. It has been passed purely in administrative exigency. 7. In view of the foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, no case for interference is warranted. Even othenvise, it is well-settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of ser^ice and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as K^\ -' 1 ^./ r "^ (S> a. 9. well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Taniil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State ofBihar & another2, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others5). The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6, held that <(In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer.?? There is no challenge to the impugned order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned order. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 11974(4)SCC3 2 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337