y j > I" i^^fei.!'' S.P.Ratnani, S/o Pobumal Ratnani, aged 60 years, Retired Libr'ar'ian, :ngineering Coilege, Raipur, Resident o -i -30 AO& I/. Tehsii & District-Raipur, (M.P.) State of Madhya Pradesh, Secr'stcrv. MoJr? Department, Govt. of AA. P. and Planning Vailabh Bhawan, The uirector of Technicat Education, m.P., Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal. Ths Principal, foovt. Engineering Coltege, S'nri Y.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. -Shri yeshwant Sinqh Thakur, 6ovt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th April, 2006) The foliowing order of the court was passed by S.R. The short question that falls for decision-making in this Writ Pe+ition filed under- Article-226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order of M.P. State Adrninistrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A.Number-08/1999 is v<hether the petitioner is entitled to insist in terms of !av< that the period be-hween 05-07-1996 and 31-05-1997 during which he was admittedly absent from duty, should be treated as leave with salary or the department was justified in treating that period as leave without saiary. 1 -2-- N1 2. The factual background of this co.se, in brief, is as follows:- That the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Librar'ian in the !?ovt. Engineering College, Raipur. By order dated 11-06-1996, the petitioner was transferred from the said coliege to Gov-t. yv'o'rnens Poiytechnic College, Raipur. A9ainst tha.said posting order, 1'he )etitionsr made a reprssentation on 15-06-1996 requesting the posting authority to "etain him as Librorian at the Govt. Engineering College, Raipur. His request was not accepted by tlie posting authority. In thc.t view of the matter, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Libr-arian on 19-06-t996 and he v»asdirected to report at the piace. Tha petitione" did not comply with the said direction. When the matter stood thus, the pstitioner retir-ed from the service w.e.f. 31-05-1997 from the post of Librar-ioji at 6ovt. Engineering Coliege, Raipur after att'aining the age of superannuation. It appears that against the rejection of his r'equest to r'etain him as Librari<in at the 6ovt. Engineering Coliege, Raipur, the petitioner had preferred a furttier representation to the 'Sovt. and the <$ovt. vide its order dated 01-06-1998 cancelied the posting or'der dated 11-06-1996. Although, from the factual matrix leo' before us which is seen from the ordsr of the Tribunal, it appears that the so-ca!!ed order made by the 6ovt. on 01-06-1998 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal for- its consideration. because, we do not find Oi'iy referenca to it in the orde?. Be that as it may, the document produceo' by the Petitioner himself marked as Annexure A-B dated 21-07-1998 aadressed to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Man Power a Planning, State of AAadhya Pradesh would s'fiow tt-iat 6ovt. by its order dated 01-06-1998 directed the depcrtment to consider the entitlement of leave of the petitioner in accordance with iaw. 3- 3. The discretionary power vested in this Court under article-226 of the Constitution of Indics should be used sparingly and only when this Court Is satisfied that the refusal to act under Article-226 would result in injustice to c party who is on right side. A civit servant working unde." the State who holds a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one piace to another or one post to other which is equivalent and he is expected to comply with the transfer order made by the lawfu! authorities. No Civi! Servant has any vested right to insist that he should be kspt at a particuler place or in a particular post. Who shoulci work wihere. 'is the pferogative of the State Employer to decide takinc) Into account pubtic interest and exigencies of tiie service. Here is a case where though the petitioner was relieved from the post of Librariayi ir, (5ovt. Engineering College, Raipur on 19-06-1996 with a clear direction to repor't to duty as Librarian at 6oyt. Vi/omen's Polytechnic College, Raipur, 'ne dio' not obey that order. Even assuming that some irregularity or- iiiegality had crept into the transfer order, that could not justify the State employee to ignore the transfer order made by the hwful authority and absent himseif from his duties, not for few days but till he retired on 31-05-1997 after-attaining the age of superonnuation. In that vievv of the matter. we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary power vested in this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 'nowever, this order shal! not come in the way of the petitioner if he is so advised to make a pr-oper representation to the 6ovt. itself in view of the order of the 6ovt. dated 01-06-1998. i—— — - - - __ Sd/- Ouef Jusdce Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge