^ HJGH COURT OF CHHATT8SGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HOSSS'BLE SHRi SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Appellant Petltloner Respondents Writ AppeaX No. 312 of 2010 Kashyap Hanwatkar, S/o Dharmaji Hanwatkar, aged about 40 years, Occupation - Banking Service R/o PJot No.9, Sector - 3 Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1 Managing Director, National Bank for Agricuiture and Rural Development, 7th Fioor, P!ot No. C-24 "G" Block Bandra Kurla Compiex, Post Box No.8121 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 40051 2 The Chief General Manager, Natlonai Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, 2nd Floor, Pithaiia Compiex Opp Trunk Exchange, Fafadih Chouk KK Road, Rajpur (CG) Wrrt AppeaS under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court io OJvlsiori Benchl Act. 2GO§. Present: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the appellant. JUDGMENT ^th (10InSsptember, 2010) The fotlowing judgmentof the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010; an application for condonation of the delay In fiiing the writ appeai ^^.s ^ . 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application,we are satlsfied that the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ appeai. 3) i.A. No.01/2010, therefore, is ailowed and the delay jn fiiing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha; learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appeiiant Kashyap Hanwatkar has fiied this writ appea! agalnst the impugned order dated 01.07.2010, passed in W.P;(S) No.2942/2010. 6) The appellant/ petitioner fiied the writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 Issue an approDriate writ, order or direction declaring the actionof respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for transfer to Mumbai from Raipur on medicaf ground to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to !aw and principles of natural justice. 10.2 Declare the rute at clause (xiv) of the circuter dated 08.02.2010 to be unconstitutionai and void. 10.3 Require the respondents to transfer the petitioner to Mumbai from Raipur on medical grounds with transfer benefits. 10.4 Grant any other reiief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'bie High Court, in the interest ofjustice." 7) The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to transfer hlm from Raipur to Mumbai on the alteged medical grounds. / "M%;:a 11 / <:-^ subbu 8) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideratjon of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any good ground for grant of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.07.201 0. 9) Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the appellant has remained at his present place of posting for more than flve years and the respondents are not considering his representation for his transfer from Raipur to JVIumbal on medicat grounds. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the iearned Singie Judge has declined to interfere in the matter. 11) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge