^^ IGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGAJ W-PISt S447/2007 K.C Bharadwai. S./o late M.L. Bharadwaj. aaed -l--,,*- R^" .r-^.—~ft_-,-.A-^ .-..-> /^«^--^ .?-M-t-.-,U:.^—.--l~ 'aDoui ob years, r'osLyu ss ^/nicef, ^t'insuisyam Gramin Bank, Gharghoda, Dlstrict Raigarh /f»f^ \ D^ O^.h"^* Q-*""(nn^i.-, M^.s- CtMif^»»; \\^.\9./j t\iw. i\Qitvvaiy D<aiiyici^/6ii ei, i^weti 'u'vy^iiii viveKanand senoo!, Kaigarn, iansil and Uistnct Raiaarh t.C.G) vci»u» 1. The Chairman, ^nai.tioyajn ^idiiiiii OCTrm, Head Office Recreation Road. Choubey Coionv, Raipur, District Rsipur (C.G.) 2. Special Uuty onicer/uenerai lanager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Nlyantrak Office, e-t-:.——.-!-. "T—l--.:!_~~~> r\:—A~:_-*f*--:——"t- //^t ^i^ \ r^^igciiti, i auSii afiu L/ii>ii ii/t r^isitgatit \\^.\^.f 3. Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Op^^^t^. ^kni^^^^-f^ n^^;^ £s^;nn^/r" ^ \ uie^ii\fii 'w'i ictjyiivua, i-/ii3t,l)\/i i-\ciiycti» ^'u''.^.?.^ Shri Paraa Kotecha Counse! forthe netitioner. /ftjlt ft ^ftft=?^ lA**.S.<.UVf ^ J. The oetitioner who is workina on the nost of Branch Manaaet" in Chhattiscia.rh Gramin Bank. Branch — Gha.rQhoda has been transferred from Branch — Gharahoda to Branch - Taushir. Learned counssl for the netitioner submits that the transfor ordar Is ,Ln vioiatlon of Transfer Poiicy, which has heen issued by Circular Hs).Kannik''16/2004-2005 (feteri 21.10.2004 fited at na.ae No.48. He takes me to Ciauses 3fa^ and 4fa) conteined in the Circuiar. Cla.use 3i'a) savs that normaliv the nerlod of nostinci of a nerson hoWina a special nost wou!d he 3 veare at nne Dtece His submission Is that the DetjtinnGr was nosted s.t Gharghcida on 01.08.2004. therefore, even hefore comptetion of 3 years, he has been transferred from the sajd pia.ce of posting. Section 4(a) sa.ys about reauest made nn the around of husband and wife and it is said tha.t the said reQuest would be Gonsiderabte on the merlts ofthe case. y._^ WP/S> 5447/^007 c^ the matter of UnSon of Snilia — Vs- S.L. sc 2444. it has been he!d by the Aoex Court that the ouidelines jssued bv fhe Government a.bout the transfer of Government emD'ovee do no confer UE?on the Government emo.lovee a tena!!v enforcea.bte riaht !t has also been he.M vide oara 7 of the aforesaid iudgment fha.t who should be transferred where. is a mattar for the a.nnmoriate authnrjtv to decide. tjnless the order of transfer is vjtiated by ma.jafides or is made in viojation of @ny statutory provisions, the Court ca.nnot interfere with it. However, it has been further heid that while orderina the transfer. there is no doubt. the authority must keep in mind fhe gujdeSines issued by the Goyernment on subject. Further in tha matter of Sfgfe of U-P. and others vs. ©< the siibiect Ls!, 3004 AiR SCW 2082, it has been observed by the Apex Court that even administ-ra.tive guidetines for regulating transfers or containing transfer poiicies a.t best may a.fford a.n opportunity to tha Qfficer or gep/ant concsrned to a.0Droach their hjgher authorities for redress htrt cannot have the consenuance of deDrivina or denvina the comnetent aiithoritv to transfer a oarticufar ofRcer/seni'ant to anv nia.ce in nubilc intarest and as is found necessitated bv exiaencies of servjca a.s lonn as the offieial status is nnt affected adverselv and there is no infraction of a.ny carew nrogDects such as senioritv. sca!e of na.v and secured eiTiolurnents. The A.oex Court has fijrther nhsen/ed that the order of transfer made even in transaressjon of administrative auideiines ca.nnot also be interfered vi'ith. as thev do not confer anv lenallv enforceable riahts. iiniess. as noticec! siiDra. shown to be vltiated bv mala fides or is made in viotatlon of anv statiitori/ Drovtsion. Learned c.ouns0! for the Detitionar couid not Doint out anv around for treatinn the transfer as maiafide or shnwinn it to be on 6xtra.neous Ronsideration or that the orrier of fransfer is anainst a.nv statuton!' Ruies or the Act anniicable in case ofthe netltionar. i dn not find anv rBa.son to interfere with the orrier of transfer issued hv th.e cornDetent aythoritv in case nf the Detitioner. narticulariv on the nrnunds oressed bv lea.rned counse! for ths netltjnner before this Court Moreover. there does not aoDear anv v.iolation of fransfer nol!w. beGa.use even if the netitioner is treated to be hoidtnn a sDaciat nost. he Is comnletina almost 3 vears at Gharahoda and gs far a.s nase of husband Shvna WPCR) 5447/2007 ^ and wife is concerned. it is sta.ted that wife of the netitioner is workina as Assistant Teacher. Raiaarh whereas. the Dolicv savs "Damr'atya Aadhai" ^ - —^ which necessarilv mean bv imnljcation that if both are workina in the Bank Itself. There anDears to be no reason to interfera with the or>'ler on these arounds. The natition has no merit and th@ sstTie is dismissed at the motion staae itse!f. ——^'—~ -s5'"1" ^-