waging BENcH 4 W ” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: C.G. W.P.N0s€47’o OF 2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 , CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner : Mahattam Das Kurre S/o Late Shri Budhram Kurre, / aged about 57 years, Patwari,Nawagarh, x ’ " R/o Nawagarh, District Durg(C.G.) Vs. Respondents: I) State ofC.G. 4’ W ‘TRhreugh- a1 ur Secretary, Revenue Department, OQ p (’i / Q¢$2) Collector, Land Record gt; ' Branch, Durg, District Durg X) ,. Lg if?” 3) V’ District Tahsildar, Durg Nawagarh, HIGE CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR 8.3. : }§0N’BLE SHRE SATISH K. AGNEHGTRL VACA?KON JUDGE XVRKT PETETEQN N92690 GE 2G0§ Mahattam Dag Kurre Petitioner V€YSUS Siate of C.G. and others ' 1 Resgondems Mr; Malay Kunmr Bhaduri, counsel for the patitimmr, Government Advgcate for thi: ‘ Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakug respondents. Present : (Passed 1 #nm GRAE on 3 GRDER 51mg ,2906) . , 1 1‘ 4 ~2004, «44006, Annexure P—Z, whereby Th6 petitioner chaKlangas nansfer /0rder dated 31—7 Annexure Pvl ancl relieving order dated 17 the petitidnar was transferred and r61ieV6d from Patwari Haika N020, Nawagarh to Patwari Hallia No.4, Saja. Leamad counsel appsaring for the shed the impugned transfer order was passed on 31-7-2004 continue as Patwari in Elaiwlai‘i Hake and the petitioner was allowed to one year and the i‘eiieving order was passed No.20, Nawagm‘h for more than on 17—4‘2006. As such? it is a ease Lfii/zalgjide petitioner submits a exercise of power. r % i @ , I Z — g Having heard Earned ccunsel appearing for the petitioner and having game through the d0cu1mnts appended t6 the writ petition, the case 0f maia nde is not made out, pai’ticuiai‘iy in the fact when the petitioner was allowed to continue at the original place of posting for more than one year before relieving order wag passed. The petitioner alone was not transferred by the impugned transfer order and not relieved by relieving order dated 17— 4—2006. It is well established principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and this is for the employer to post the employee at a particular place in the public interest and in administrative convenience. No other allegation has been made. 9 3. In View of the foregoing, no ease has been rnade out for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .No.2032/2006, l.A.No.530d-/2()06 and l.A.No.5305/2006 stand disposed of. No order as to costs summarily; Consequently; M.(W.)P Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Vacation Judge 4v, Gopal