C.r IN THE mGH COUIIT OF JUDICATCRE €!aHATnSGARH Petitioner W.P. No. Versus Madan Yadu S/o Late J.L.Yadu, aged about 56 years, R/o Civil Line, Dhamtari, Dist: Dhamtari-(C.G.), Respondents State ofChhattisgarh through the Secretary Health Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) The Director Health Services Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) The Chief Medical & Health Officer Dhamtari, Dist: Dhamtari-(C.G.) The Collector Dhamtari, Dist: Dhamtari- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNQFINDIA -^s-^ a.^ ,((».' Petitjoner : Madan Yadu Versus Respondents State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Shri P. biwakar, Senior Adv-ocate with Ms. Sunita Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, (5ovt. Advocate for the 5tate/respondents. ORAL ORDER (23rd February, 2006) The petitioner was working as Heaith Assistant in Primary Heaith Centre, 6ujra, &istrict-t5hamatari was transferred by order dated 25-11-2003 (.Annaxwe P-14) to ,'Sector-Achchota, under Primary Heaith Centre, ©ujra. 2. Lsarned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailments i.e. Haemorids with F'ssswe in his Recfum. In co.se., the petitioner is transferred as Health Assistant in Sector-Achchota under Primary Health Centre-fiujra. the petitioner mcy be required to yisit yarious places by bicycle and that nnay aggrqvate his ailment. 3. This Court by order dated 19-12-2003 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of San9onak (Cpmputfer) till the next date of hearing. This interim order dated 19-12-2003 was neither varied nor modified later on. The petitioner has continued to work at old place in the capacity of Sanganak (Computer). The petitioner has been granted final relief by the interim ^]i;;;^<n:1i'lli:": ^ 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is cn incident of service ana it is for 1+ie empioyer to decide as to where particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as weil as administrative exlgency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the trnnsfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competenca of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformit)' with the ruies arid rsguiations. The petitioner/emp!oyee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. At this stage,it is not necessary tc )o into the validity of the impugned order. However, in the facts of thi case, the r-espondents ar-e directed not to insist upon compiiance of the impugned transfer order dated 25-11-2003 (Annexure P-14) and may consider his health problem for posting at a place where he may not be requir'ed to undertake vlslts to severat places by bicycle. 5. In yiew of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. " ---•-'--——--_ satishK-^how Judge BiilfBg! ii.itin