WRIt PETITION (St No. 3734 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Heeramani Shukla, Son of Shri Raghunath Prasad Shukla, aged about 57 years, Branch Manager, Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bi-anch Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Matachaura, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS . . . • I. The Chairmaa, Chhattisgarh Gramm Bank, Sainta Colony, Raipur Talisil and District Raipur(C.G.) . 2. The General Manager, Regional OfBce Chhatisgarh Gramin Bank, Vyapara Vihar, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Personnel Maaager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Special OfSeer on Duty, Controllmg QfBce, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Bilaspur(C.G.) . 5. Thaiidaram Rathore, at present working as Manager, Chhattisgarh Oramia Bank, Shivrinarayan Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRTTPETmONU/A 226/227 OFTHE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA Sinele Bench : Hon'Ue Justlce Shri Satisfa K. Agmhotri. Present: ShriGautamKhetrapal, Advoeateferthepetitioner. (Passed on 2nl"day of July, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner impugns the order dated 18.06.2007 (Annexure P/l) wherehythe petitionerhas beentransfetred dh fhe same capacity to Shivrmarayaa branch. Leamed counsel makes a lumted contention that since the petitioner is senior in the cadre, the petitioner should have been posted at Bilaspur and the respondent No. 5 should not have been transferred from Shivrinarayan to Bilaspui, who doesnotpossessthesameexpeHenceofserviceasthepetiti(merUas.I|W! ^•^^^.s^sis^^i^tii^-. ij- i -^ submitted tfaat Ihe petitioner is entitled to the same pay-scale. His^ seiiiority is also aot affected. 2. I fail to understand fhat in case of transfer, where is Ifae question of seniority. The seniority comes iuto play when the case is considered for promotion or grant pf other benefits. Admittedly, Ihe petitioner's pay or seniority or other benefits in the Service is not affected by fhe impugned transfer order. There is no merit inthis case andthe petitioner has also not shown ri^rt or breachthereofto invokejurisdiction ofthis Court. 3, Be Ihat as it may.It is well-settled prfuciple of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has Uinited jurisdiction to inteifere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only m the cases of proved malafide, non-competenee of authority passing fhe transfer order and not being in conformity withthe rules aad regulations. 4; In view of fhe foregoing, this petitioa stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, application for interim relief, also stands disposedof. Sd/- 1 SatisfrK. Agnihotri j E fJudge Amit i