ti 1 ^^ tl ''•W'-' 15 ^-3wy < --'« <g ^) HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition tS} No. 7071 of2010 Petitioner Ramdayal Shriras, aged about 59 years, S/o Bramhadeen Shrivas, R/o Villageand Post Sakralida, Tahsil and Thana Dabra, District Janjgir Champa Versus Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Cooperative Depariment, Raipur 2 Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, through ite Branch Manager Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur 4 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society Janjgir Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ApDsarance: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petilaoner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyerforthe State on advance copy. ORALORDER (04.12.2010) SUNiL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner- Ramdayal Shrlvas is working of the post of Society Manager. By the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure-P/1), he has been transferred from Samiti, Chapora, Branch Matkharoda to Samiti Pasan, Branch l<^tghora on administrative grounds. Mr. Koteeha, learned counsel for the petitloner submits that the petitioner is going to retire after about 1 year, 4 months. He also submits that the petitioner is engaged in purchasing of paddy, therefore, the petitioner would not have been transferred from his present place of posting to the transfered place. ^ On being pointedly asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that since when the petitioner is posted at Chapora, he fairly submits that the petitioner is posted at Chapora since a very long period. As far as retirement of the petitioner after 1 year, 4 months is concerned, that would hardly be a ground to jnterfere with the transfer order of the petitioner in absence of statutory'statortoij^provisions giving V:./ v.,.'^?'' W.P.rS^ No. 7071 of 2010 such protection to the employees. About engagement of the petitioner is purchasing paddy, it is for the employer to see as to whether it would be appropriate to send the petitioner on transfer at this stage or not. It has not been disputed before this Court that the petitioner is working on a transferable post. Transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make his claim for posting at a particuiar piace. It is for the employer to see as to who should be posted at which place, keeping in mind the better functioning of the department as also thepublic interest. Uniess the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rule or the Act, normally such orders are not to be interfered by a court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the writ petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. _^^___» -p Sd/- , ; SunilKumarsinha \ Judge 1 ^t'y