/‘ PETITIONER ESPONDENTS 5 aa‘SR “a sh: ‘ / 4?- mm 3mm” @ j) Late K.N. Mahato, aged about 46 years, working as Clerk Grade-l, B858 Hospital, Banki Mongra, ‘TahsiL Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). VERSUS :-/1. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Gevra Project, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). /2. South Eastern Coal Field Limited, through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C G) /’3. South Eastern Coal Field Limited ‘ through Sub Area Manager Sub Aiea Banki P O RaJgamar Collier Distuct Ixorba (C G ) /, 4. South Eastern Coal Field Limited, through Deputy‘ Chief Medical Officer, Banki, ’ Surakachhar t Hospital, Banki, Tahsil— Katghora, District: Korba (C.G.)‘ 5. South Eastern Coal Field Limited through Area Personal Manager Korba Area Distiict Korba (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p. (S) No. é0 l OF 2011 :— ’/ Chandra 'Bhushan Mahato S/o OFa R y @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 18! No. 601 of2011 I Post for pronouncement ofjudgrnent & order on I?day *‘ of , September, 201 l. ,.WWW § Satish K. Sd/—' Agnihotn Judge Chandra Bhushan Mahato. VERSUS RESPONDENTR Chief General Manager, South Eastern W; i ‘N CoalfleldsLtd.&0thers. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 601 0f201 I Chandra Bhushan Mahato. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Chief General Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF Present: INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 0 R D E R (Delivered on .lL/i‘xiay of September, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17 January, 2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioner, working as Clerk Grade I, B&S Hospital, Banki, District Korba, has been transferred to Baikunthpur Area, on administrative grounds. The facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of the dispute are that the petitioner was working as Clerk Grade I at B&S Hospital, Banki Area, District Korba, and by the impugned order dated 17 January, 2011 (Annexure P/l), he has been transferred to Baikunthpur Area, District Koria. Before passing of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner was transferred on 15 April, 2010 from Regional Headquarter, S.E.C.L. Korba to Rajgamar Sub area. Thereafter, by order dated 16 November, 2010, the petitioner was transferred from Rajgamar Area to Banki Surakachhar Hospital, on his own request, which is mentioned in the office order dated 24/25 November, 2010, and joined en 24 November, 2010 at Banki Sub $3 Area from Rajgamar area. Therea%r, the impugned order dated 17 January, 2011 was passed. Smt. Renu Kochar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the impugned transfer order was given effect to, his wife, children and old mother living with him would face difficulties. After receiving the impugned order, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation on 18 January, 2011, which could not be decided, Thus, there should be a direction to the respondent-Company to decide the same within a reasonable period. The impugned transfer order was passed mala fide to harass the petitioner as he is the president of Janta Dal United. Smt. Kochar further submits that within a period of 9 months, the petitioner has been transferred three times which comes within the ambit of “frequent transfers”. None appears on behalf of respondents. However, return was filed by the respondents wherein, it was submitted that there was no mala fide in transferring the petitioner. The petitioner has not established the same on the basis of cogent and strong reason. The petitioner, being workman, should have taken recourse to the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, this petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the from 1989 to 1991 as many as 27 warnings and charge sheets have been issued in his service career. The impugned transfer order was passed in administrative exigency. So far as second transfer order dated 16 November, 2011, which finds place in the office order dated 24/25 November, 2011 was concerned, the same was done at the request of the petitioner. Thus, it is not a case of the frequent transfers, but has been passed strictly in administrative exigency and public interest. The second allegation of the petitioner that the respondent— Company has passed the impugned transfer order malafz‘de, as the petitioner is the president of Janta Dal United, is also not found proved as except the self-same statement, there is no other grounds pleaded or proved. The petitionerhas filed a letter dated 18 January, 2011 as President of the Union Jantadal United, wherein the pgtitioner has alleged that he was being harassed and requested for cancellation of the impugned transfer order. Thus, the allegation of mala fide is unfounded. On perusal of the impugned order, there is nothing which shows that the petitioner is a victim 0f arbitrary or illegal acts of the respondent authorities. It is well settled that to establish mala fide exercise of power, there must be strong and cogent reasons having direct nexus with the alleged order passed. Having regard to the fact that his first transfer order was passed in 15 April, 2010, thereafter, the second transfer order was passed on 16 November, 2010 on the request of the petitioner, and the present impugned order was passed on 17 January, 201 l, does not come within the ambit of “frequent transfers”. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. J; 8. The petitioner has failed to establish and prove his contentions, except making selfsame statement. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particulax place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E’P.R0yappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another’, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and 0thers3 and Mahd. ‘ Maspod Ahmad v. State of U.P. & 0thers4 and Airports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & 0thers5)'. 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. The petition being bereft ofmerit is accordingly dismissed, 10. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit mw Sd/-' l 1974 (4) scc 3 2 3 (2004) 4 scc 245 4 (1995) 3 scc 27o (2007) 8 scc 150 5 (2009) s scc 337 "