IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rcHHATnSGARH) Writ Appeal No.^ ^—/20io (Aeainst order dated 02.12.2010 passed byjlon'ble Single Tudge in Writ Petidon (S) No. 6993 of 2010) APPELLANT ( P^on^) g- N.R.Garud S/o D.R.Garud, A/a 55 years, R/o Radhaswami Satsang Bhawan, Kalinagar, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ( IVJP!' / ^i^--"" VERSUS i. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim and District Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. B.R.Sahu S/o A.R.Sahu, A/a 55 Years, R/o Sub Divisional Officer, rural Engineering Services, Janpad Panchayat, Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.) .^^^' Meino ofApDeal under section 2d) ofthe Chhattissarh Hieh Court (Aupeal to Division Bench') Act 2006. The Appellant nam-ed ^1^^^—--^~ Vte HI&H COURT OF CHH^mS^^RH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE AAR. I.M.QU&DUSI B HON'BLE MR. PMSHANT KUM^ft MISHM. JJ. APPELLANT (PgtstEonsr) RESPONbENTS W.A. N0.572/2010 N.ft. ^orud Vs Stcrt-eofC.&.&fft-hers Pr@s@fiti Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. AAr. A.S. KQchhwaha, Dy. Advocate &eneral for the State. ORAL JUD&MENT d><ass®don 10th Jonuary, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; ^ 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ appeai is filed against the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (5) No.6993/2010 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner/appelbnt herein fiied against the transfer order dated 14.7,2010. 3. Vide order dated 14.7.2010 the Qppellant, who is a Sub-Engineer and holding the charge of Sub Divisional Officer (RES), Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, has been transferred to Janpad Panchwat, Bhairamqarh as In-charge, Sub Divisional Officer (RES). The said transfer order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. The learned Singe Judge, afrer hearing the learned counsel for the parties and consiciehng the facts and circumstances ofthe case dismissed the writ petition., 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has suhmitted that the impugned or,der of transfer has been passed in violation of the transfer policy framed by the State &overnment for the year 201-11,as within a period of 18 months from the date of his earlier transfer the appellant hcis cigoiin been ^/ ^ ^ .^ ":^:~. :yiiC^ \ 1^ J '%,^^y ,,'^'/"" |lUWi MNwkffi,- hlll|iUil|NIB transferred. He has further submitted that the appellant is suffering from Hyper-tension & Anemia and proper medical facilities are not available at the transferred piace. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order passed bythe learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the pcirties and perused the records. 8. It is settied position that the transfer is an incidence of service and no one con claim his right over a particular place. It is for the employer to see as to vi/ho should be posted at which place keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also the public interest. 9. After going through the record and the impugned order, we are of the opinion that there is no illegQlity or impropriety in the impugned orderand the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed thew/rit petition. 10. However, considering the fact that the appellant is the patient of Hyper- tension d Anemia, it is provided that it will be open for the appellant to move a fresh representation before the competent authority concerned raising all the grievances raised in thiswrit appeal. On such representation being made, the competent authority shall consider the same sympathetically and decide it expeditiously in accordance with low. 11. Sub.ject to above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. -— Koshon/" Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge