\A? HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONER 'V RESPONDENTS W.P.tSl No.7377of2007 Khushirain Netam, ^ed about 41 years, S/o Sukuram Netam., By Caste Gond, R/o Duuiarpara, Siagarbhar, Tahsil and Distnct Kaaker(C.G.) Versus 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secietary, Ministry of Wom.eu aad chUd Welfare Departmeiit, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipur. 2 The CoUector, Kaiiker. 3. Project Officer, Mahila aad Bal Vikas Vibhag, Distdct Kaolcer 4. Ram Prasad, Peon, Mahila and Bal Vikas, KarLker (Wtit Petition uadet Article 226 of the Constitution of Indial Appearaace: Sfari Parag Kotecha, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri. A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate for fhe State on advance eopy. ORALORDER (17.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Peon, has been tEansferred froin. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Katiker to Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Antagarh on admmistrative grounds. Leamed couusel for the petitioner subBuits fhat siaee fhe house of fhe petitioner is under construetion , aad he has dexaaaded for part payment of fhe gratuity amount, he has been transferred iroia his presentplace ofposting to Antagarh. The ground raised by the petitioner for holdiag the order oftransfer as a xaalafide order does not appear to be bona&de. It cannot be presumed fhat on fhe ground of deinandiag part payment of gratuity amouat, somebody would be mala&dely traitsferred froin his present place of posting, because, he uiay inake sueh deruand in his new place ofpostuig also. ^ . <e? ^ ^' W.P.(S)No.7377/2007 Trausfer is an iacidence of service. No pereon workmg on a traasferable post can clauu to be posted at a particular place. It is for the eiaplbyer to see fhat who should be posted where ia fhie iaterest ofbetter ftuictioiiing ofthe department as also in fhe public iuterest. It is the settled view of fhe Apex Court fhat uiiless fhe order oftraasfer is vitiated by malafide or extraaeous considerations or is agamst any statutory Rules or Act, it carmot be iaterferedby a CourtofLaw. Learaed counsel for the petitioner could not point out aay grouxid of mala&de, or extraaeous considerations or that the order has been passed against aay Statutory Rule or the Act. In view of the above, I am not iucluied to adinit this petition for hearing against fhe impugned order dated 22/7/2007. The petition has to be disniissed for the relief of setting aside of fhe traasfer brder of the petitioner and the same is accordiagty dismissed. Besidesthe above, ftie petitioner has also prayed vide relief No.2 fhat fhe respondents be directed to gratrt fhe benefit of Kramonati to the petitioner froin tbe date of completion of 12 years of hisservice. It appears to me that the iacident of trausfer of the petitioner aad not graating Kramonati are two different cause of actions and the iacident appears to be one of inisjoiader of cause ofaction. For fhis relief, the petitioner has to file a different petitiQn, because, these two cause of actions are neifher co-related nor intermixed aad the same cannot be joiued with each other iu a cojaunon petition. In vlew of fhe above, fhe petition for such relief is not admitted and tiie sfflaie is accordingly disposed of. However, fhe petitioner would be at liberty to file aaofher petition for fhe relief of KToanonati. With fhe aforesaid observations aad Uberty, fbis petition staads finally disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Jydge