'^^ U fci - ^—Hb^-•'- 'F'-^ pies C. r Aa<eA-"' IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. N0. ^^"7-/2006 PETITIONER "-^ RESPONDENTS /- H.K. Meshram S/o late Shri S.B. Meshram, aged about 38 years, R/o Malviya Nagar, Station Road, Durg [C.G.]. VERSUS :- ^(1) Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Department of Energy, Raipur [C.G.]. (2) Additional Secretary, of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipiir [C.G.]. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3^''<<i<<i<i<i, ®Tn<f'is,ftdiyy 3ll^yi ><s|<h Hww Wh •"•"•'•••——••••f^ 200^ f^<)<A 3ii^T?>r f^TRTsn^r aixi»olsfl < SflS-flSWIIigTBfgtT AAr. J.K. Shastri, counsel for Miss Deepaii Pandey, Panel Heard both the counsel. 8y the instant writ petition of India, the petitioner has quastio! dated 3-7-2006 passed by respond< transferr'ed from Dur'9 to Raipur. The cose of the petitioner is ChhattiS9arh State Eiectricity Boa) main ground of chslienge is that this of CSEB eircuiar dated 27-8-2005 (^ Lear-ned counse! for the pe^i poiicy Annexure P-5, transfers ccn November and &ecernber. In bscomes eiigibie for tr'cnsfer' on corji In the first instance, ths pe'| months at Durg. Moreover, this cii the Officers, but this js not the st4i Apex Court's judgment in the cas^ Abbas reported in ^IR 1993 SC settfed law that transfer can be q4s grounds or" contr'ary to the ststuto^ instant_»ifritpetition. norrial ^^s®^s °ni<<Fii<fli *ii*<ciT¥te<^<Rf+!;i< ^^f^ffsn^r he petitioner. ?ysr for the State, on advance copy. Lai^y i^ider Article 226/227 of the Constitution fed the legaiity and propriety of the ordsr |nt No.2, whereby the petitioner has been 1-hat he is working as Executive Engineer in 'd at Dur9 since September, 2004. The transfer is contrary to ths trcnsfer policy ^nnexure P-5). itioner submits that cs per- the transfer pe made only in the months of May, June, cases, concerned empioyee or Officer ipletion of thr'es ysar-s period ct one place. itioner has almost completed one year Ten issued by CSES is a guid'mg factor for> hutory 9uideline and therefore, as per the of Umon of India ond others v. S.L. p444, it is not legally enforcsab'e. It is astioned only when it ie made on mcia fide rules, but there is no such ground in the r'4uiar (tft^^^) XI-HC-22 Q^ 3^ '^nKw, w^\wi<o, Ridiyy W Msich , —....(y:^.^ss7/ 111CTIS»*ll<h••••"•"•••••••••••• ^; 200 ^ R*«A an^sTqir f^TWSn^T sniiqi yfsfl ShHI^) /-. -;1/. /.' ~v Sti^lswiwfff^a' - 2-- <ni<<I<-i<fli *ii*«iYfftei<!l<Rf+<;i< ^qrf^isn^r •Lesrneci counsel for the petij-ioner further ar9Ued that the petitioner ^l-.i'.'f-^; belongs to Scheduled Caste categor^ and being Scheduled Casts he shou!d not have been transferred. Leorned (jounse! drew the sttention of the Court towords the cjrcular issued by the Si Perussl of the circular show |iver-nment (Annexure P-6) dated 6-8-2003. fe that the cases of Officers beionging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe c|nd Other Backwar-d Clcssses must be dealt with ieniency and bonafideness, and {-hey shouid not be transferred frequentiy. There are no aliegations in this pet|tion that the petitioner is not being deait with !eniency or with bonafideness. jiAoreover, there are no aliegations that the transfer is out come of maia fide. I.Therefore, I do not find any merit in the orgument advanced by learned coun; In the rssuit, the writ petit as to costs. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.25|85/2006 stands disposed of. ;ef for the petitioner. on is dismisssd hsvin9 no merit. No order Sd<- L.C. 3h»8BO Jud&e 4 ^f -<5- (^^f^)