-1- ,^\tl° ^ IN_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N N0: 2-32-QF 2004 PETITIONEK:.. Koyala Mazdoor Sabha through its President, Johila Area Shii B.P. Mishra, Po: Nowrozabad Colliery, Dist: / Umaria (M.P) ^B::':i-l^;l-^'rf^:i?.s^>^-^ RESPONDENTS: 1 /.'^ ,-<'^"' A^;^"', ^&/ 3 _.'r <7<-\<S>.i' _<^ .^."' c:v' ^' ^'^A ^^~7' Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managmg Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G). The Chief General Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Johila Area, PO: Nowrozabad Colliery, Dist: Umaria (M.P). The Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limitsd, Nowrozabad Sub Area, PO: Nuwrozabad Colliery, Dist: Umaria (M.P) ;rf~-~.--.^. ,fs^y^: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ^;'.' ^r^; ¥.. <Q •"0>.\^ \t^ CONSTITUTION OF INDLA "; ..~^,, v^w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISG.^RH AT BIL^PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETl'nON No. 292 of2004 : Kovala Mazdoor Sabha. H" VERSUS RESPONDENTS .: South Eastem Coalfislds Ltd. & Others. WRir PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSrTrUTION OF MDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.Shailsndra Shukla, Advoctae for tiiffTespondeiit No. 1 & 2 Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3 and 4. OfiDER(ORAL) (Passed on 31st day of March, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15.01.2004 (Annexure P/l) whereby tlie members of fhe petitioner-Sabha who are Miners/Piece rated workers, have been transferred fi-om Nowrozabad Sub Area to Pinoura Sub Area for Time rated job (UG), on the ground that the members ofthe petitioner-Sabha would sufter financial loss. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submit that tlie respondents have made a categorical statement on 4.2.2004 as is evident from the order sheet that by fhe impugned order, the members of the petitioner-Sabha would not suffer any fiiianciai loss. If is not the case of the petitioner that no transfer can be made from one sub-area to another sua-area. 3. The petitioner-Sabha has not challenged the impugned traiisfer order on any other admissible ground viz. lack of competence of the officer passing the order, violation of statutory rules or regulations or malafide. If the transter causes some loss in salary or other service career, the Court may interfere with such transfer orders. But in the iiistant case. when categorical statemeiit has been made by the respondents, nothing sui-vives tbr adjudication in thismatter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. - However, if grievance of any member of the petitioner-Sabha still survives, and is shown by specific instance that there has been any loss in salary, allowance or service career, liberty is reserved to the individuai to file a fresh petition, if so advised. —— ^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge