HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHATTISGARH ’A’l‘ BILASPUR Writ Petition No. '1950 of 2003 H,G.C11om‘asia, son of M.L.Choura5ia, aged about 52 years, presently posted as Jr. Superintendent (C1assJII post), O$ce of the Branch Manager, CG. State Ware Housing Corporation’, Branch at Khaxsiya, Distn'ct—Raigarh, R/o Kharsia, Distn'ct-Raigarh (C, G.). PETITIONER: —Versus— k 1. Chhattisgarh State Wars RESPONDENTS: Housing Coxporation, through its Chairman, CG. State Ware Housing Corporation, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur(C.G.). ' 2. Managing Director, C.G. State Ware ' Housing Corporation, Head OEce at Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3. V. K. Kateliya, Jr. Technical Assistant, O$ce of Branch Manager, C.G. State Wale Housing Corporation, Katghora, Disnict— Korba (C.G.). 4. S. C. Pandey, Jr. Superintendent, O$ce of Branch Manager, C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation, Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.). POST FOR ORDER ON [3M SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge 5a HIGH COURT GF JUDICATURE, CHHAT’HSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2003 PETITIONER: H. G. Chourasia, son of M.L.Chourasia, aged about 52 years, presently posted as Jr. Supelintendent (Class—III post), Omce of the Branch Manag6r, C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation, Branch at Kharsiya, District-Raigarh, Rio Kharsia, District-Raigarh (C.G.). -Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. Chhattisgarh Stato Ware Housing Corporation, through its Chairman, C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.). Managing Dimctor, (LG. State Wara Housing Corporation, Head O$ce at Raipur, Disttict— Raipur (C. G.). 3. V. K. Kateliya, Jr. Technical Assistant, O$Ce of Branch Manager, CG. State Ware Housing Corporation, Katghora, District- Korba (co). 4. S. C. Pandey, Jr. Superintendent, O$ce of Branch Manager, C.G. State” Ware Housing Corporation, Bilaspur, District— Bilaspun (co). Shri Y. C. Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri M. K. Beg, counsel for the respondent No. 3. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel for respondent No.4. Before: Han’ble shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. b 53/ ORDER (Passed on l Q Qt; September, 2003) 1. Th6 petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226!227 ef the Constitution of India Challenging the order dated 28.6.2003 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Kharasia Branch to Katghora Branch. This order is to the following edectr (i) Respondent No.3 V. K. Katelia has been transferred from Katghora Brancfi to Bilaspur Branch on his own request and expenses. (ii) Respondent No.4 S. C. Pandey has been transferred from Bilaspur Branch Kharasia Branch. 85 (iii) Petitioner H. G. Chourasia has transferred from Kharasia “Branch Katghora Branch. 2. The facts leading to tiling of this writ petition are that the petitioner is presently posted as Jr. Superintendent in the office of the Branch Manager of State Ware Housing Corporation at Kharasia, his post is Class-III. .He joined the Corporation as a Junior Technical Assistant in the year 1979 and after reorganization of the State of M.P. he was finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and in the month of August 2002 he was directed to join in the ofhce of the Branch Manager, Rajnandgaon. Thereafter the petitioner was attached with the Head Quarter, Raipur in the month of April 2003; In the month of May, 2003 i.e. within a month the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Kharasia on w / 5% 7.5.2003 where th€ petitionm‘ join€d in the oElce of Branch Manager at Kharasia. Now again th€ petitionar has been transfermd Vida ord€r (it. 28.62003 &om Khalasia to Katghora (District-Kofba). According to the petitioner this transfer order has; been iss‘ued juSt to accommodate the Respondent No3 who has been transferred at his own request, therefore the impugned transfer order is malaflde and not sustainable, it sun‘ers from illegality and comes within the ambit of frequent transfer. . Return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in which it has been mentioned that the transfer order of the petitioner has been issued in administrative interest, all the transfer orders of the petitioner were issued in administrative interest, transfer is an incident of service and an employee should always ready to serve Wherever he is asked to join. The transfer has not been effected just to accommodate the Respondent No.3. The nansfer is not malande or arbitrary, therefore the writ petition be dismissed. 4. The Respondent.No.3 has also tiled his return in which it is stated that all the allegations made in the writ petition are denied. The petitioner while working at Rajnandgaon committed certain irregularities that is why he was attached to Raipur, therefore that was not a transfer therefore the petition be dismissed. 5. Return has also been filed by the Respondent No.4 in which it is stated that he was settled at Bilaspur and Within a period of one year he has been transferred to Kharasia. "t . / 6‘ I have heatd learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is hue that it is always prcsumed that the transfers of the ofiicers/employees ale made in administrative exigencies unless it is made contraiy to the Rules or with malafide. The transfer is an incident of service In the case in hand, the petitioner has vely specitically raised the point that he has been transferred just to accommodate the Respondent No.3 and that is why the transfer is malaflde. The action of the employer can be established to be malande by showing through record but sometimes it can be inferred from the relevant record which prima facie on the face of record shows that the action of the employer is not justified and is not reasonable. 8. The power ofjudicial review of the administrative action of the authority can be exercised only when it is found that the action of the employer is unjust, not proper, arbitrary and malaiide. In this case if we look at the order Annexure P/ 1 it shows that the Respondent No.3 has been transferred on his own expenses from. Katghora to Bilaspur which shows that the transfer has been made on the request of Shri VIK Katelia. 9. Now coming to the question as to whether transfer of the petitioner comes within the ambit of frequent transfers. The petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Kharasia in the month of May 20.03 and within a period of one and a half month he has been again transferred from Kharasia to Katghora and this is in consequence of the transfer of the @ Respondent No.3. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination this action of the respondent cannot be held to be bonaiide or in the admmistrative exigency. Thie Couxt iS always reluctant to interfere with the transfer orders and it is expected that the employer always transfers his employee in the interest of the administration or in the public interest. But the facts of this case itself shows that the petitioner has been transferred frequently and that too when he is an employee of the lower level and it prima facie shows that the transfer has been effected just to adjust the Respondent No.3 and not for the administrative reason. It has not been mentioned anywhere that the work of the petitioner at Kharasia was not up to the mark or there was any complaint against him regarding the work or conduct. 10.In View of the above, i am of the opinion that it is an - exceptional case in which the power to judicial review should be exercised by the Court in order to rectify the unreasonable and arbitrary action of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. 11‘ In the result the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order qutif’the petitioner is set-aside. Respondents No. l and 2 shall suitably adjust the Respondents No. 3 and 4. Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge 1 t