^-s^ ^I^> ^ -•••• .^•* ..^••" INTHE C^^r^ @" •ts ^ CHHATTISGARH WRJTFETTFBQN^NO. ^<^L[6 /2OT1 A.A. Firdosi, S/o- Shri Abdul Hamid, Aged about 60 years, Sub Engineer, W.R.D. Presently working in the office ofEngineer-m-Chief, Raipm^ Distt. Raiptir, Chhafetisgarh. PETITIONER / VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Throu.gh - Secretaiy/Under Seeretary, Department of Water Resources^ D.K.S. Bhawaa, Mss^is&ayai, Raipur, C.G., 2. The EngmeeT-m-CNef^ Department of Water Resources, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ( INM^ FOK ES^JANCE WKFIWTHE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC. /^.; ashok PETITJONER HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETJTION (S} N0. 2546 OF 2011 A.A.Ftrdosi RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattlsgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri AJay Dwjvedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State ORDERCORAU (Passed on this 11th day of May, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that the petitloner is to retlre within a period of four months form the date of impugned. order of transfer dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure Pa-1). This is contrary to the transfer poiicy 2010-2011 dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure P-6), wherein In Clause 9(2), it is provided that ifan employee has one year or iess than that, for his retirement, he may be posted in the home district or at the aiternative place, as desired by the employee. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is likeiy to retire wjthin a period of four months. Thus, transferring the petitioner just four months before the date of retirement is contrary to the provisions of guidelines and aiso appears to be notin adminlstrative exigency. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submlts that the transfer of the petitioner appears to be contrary to the transfer pol'icy. 4. Thus, havlng regard to the principJ^s ofthe transfer policy, wherein, it appears that attempt has been made to facilitate the employee's settiement, after retirement. Accordingiy, a provision has been made in Ciause S(2) of the transfer poiicy to post an employee in his home district or at an aiternate place on his request, when the service of an empioyee is for one year or less than that. The order Is opposed to the transfer poiicy i.e. pubiic poiicy. 5. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the petltjon is aliowed. No order asto costs. \ Sdl- , _ SatishK.A9"'hotrl Judge