(9 3mm 3mm ' F/Qto’% IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 0 1 / Asho Kumar‘ Namdeo, S/o Shr‘i k Ramshamn Namedo, aged abou‘r 5O years, R70 Shi’rkl, Ward NO. Through :- Thai Secre'rar‘y, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Disf‘r. Raipur" (C.G.) Execu’rive Engineer, Jal Sansadhan mbhag, kawardha, Disf’r. Kabirdham (C.G.) . Sub Divisional fficer, Jal 3 O Sansadhan Up—sambhag No. 2, Dis’ri. Kabirdham kawardha, Sansaan Vibhag, Raipur, i Disf’r. Raipur C.) w.P.(s) No. a */2011 (5.3.) PETITIONER Sa dh (G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. \wx/ q/q/ M) , 14, Kawar‘dha, Police ‘ S’ra’rion & Dis’r’r. . ”Vi“ x\ ‘ \W ' Kabir'dham (C.6.) @m VW_..9 : v \ VERsus- §E5PONDENT5 :1f state of Chha++is9arh, (6.6.) (W 4. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi, Godawari Kachchar, Jul PETITXONER IGH COURT OF CHHATFI3GARH AT BILASPUR H WRI’F PETITION (S) No. 402 0f201 \ 1 Ashok Kumar Namdeo. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble 8hri Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. Present: Ms. Mamta Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y‘S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. I ORDER ORAL (Passed on 24 day of January, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing ofthe order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) and further, to direct the respondent authorities not to execute the order of transfer dated 23.10.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner, working as Timekeeper, has been transferred tiom the oflice of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kawardha to the office of Executive Engineer, Kharang, District Bilaspur. L L Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after regularization of the petitioner, the petitioner has not completed a period of three years at the present place of posting, thus, the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of‘the State Government. Ms. Shrivastava tinther suhmits that the’parents of the petitioner are old aged and ailing person. The sons of the ~\\petitioner are studying in class 11m and class 8m at Kawardha. ' .\‘ \ gl/ 2 Thus, the impugwd transfer would cause more hardship for the petitioner ifhe is forced to join the new place ofposting. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is an admitted position that initially the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.103.1983 as Field Assistant at Lohara, District Kabirdlmn and since that date, the petitioner has been working at the same place. 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 r 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. 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 particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamz‘l Nadu and another’, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another}, Stare ofMP. and another v. S.S.Kourav and othersj and Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others”). i 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (2004) 4 SCC 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 \‘\-e,\\ x 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 \e..\’ ($3 3 The Supreme Coun, in Airports Authority of‘India v. Rajeev Ratan , held that “In a matter of'transfer of a government employee, scope ofjudicial review is limited and the High Conn would not inte1fere with an order of transfer lightly, be t at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter oftransfer”. Even oiherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal gounds as aforesiated, wanantmg‘mterlerence. Flor the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. No order Pandey & Others 5 asto i costs ~ I AW sw— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ (2009) 8 so 337 c i