’ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ‘NPJT PETETEOI‘! P30. 194.2 9F 2093 n 1’DST FOR ORDER OI” z; Lifxugusi, 2003, Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge PETiTiGNER Lakhan Lai Sahu, Son of Shn' Indal Ram Sahu, aggd about 56 1/2 yeals, working as Secretaxy, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg, Resident of Subha$hnaga13 behind Shiv MandirQah Duxg, District-Burg (C.G.). - Vets ‘s— RE3PGWBENT$ 1. Siam of Chhatt‘isgarh, Through Sscretary, D€pa1tment of ‘ AgriC“ mm, DKS Building, Mantralava. Raipur, District— Rajmdr v ’C‘G.‘ x ) 2. ‘ The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Stat-2 Aglicultural i ‘13: MgkZHE’g 13L c R Bgiffi,’ 1yur Ol‘d D1stmct Gala-j Ral M'agldi ur (9&1). i . 3. Jsmt Dirscter, Cbhattisgarh State I Agn‘cuitural Marketing Board, Old Ganj Mandi Promises, Raipur, District—Raipur (C.G.). 4. Shli J.L.Sawamzi, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiii, Kharasiya, Distn‘cb Raigarh (C.G.). (m HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETETIGN N0. 194° G Q 3 Ans“ §f 200'¥\ Bv Justice L. C. Bhadoo. 1. The petitioner by filing this Writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Consfitution of India has challenged the order dated 27.6.2002 Amexure Pil bV which he has been transferred from the post of Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (for short ‘Samiti’j Durg ami has beeu attached with \ the Head Quarter of the Mandi Board at Raipur. i FETE’T‘IGEEZ Lakhan Lai Sahu, Son of Shri Indal Pam qahu, agad about 56 V2 years, working as Secxetaxy, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg, R6$idtni of Subhashilagar, bshmd Shiv Mgmdir Gali, Durg, District-Burg (C.G.). - Versus- RE3PG1€DEhMS 1 Statf: UL prihaLLiSgmh Through Secreta1y Denattment of Agiicultaro, uKS “"lldmg, Mantralava Ramur D1stmct— ' “amur {C 2. The Managmg Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, 01d Ganj Magdi premiscs, Raipur, District-Raipur (QGJ. 3. 4. Joint Dirsctor, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Markoting Board, Old Ganj Manch prom;scs, Raipur, District-Ralpm (VG). Shri J.L QaWc-nfn', “ecretary, ' Km‘shi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kharasiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.). Q R D E R. K) ’1‘1nn I up ““4444“ ybuuunu nv’s pctitiozi is +1.. maL 4» Lu: 1n wonmd 1 as Secretaly of the Samml at Rajnaadgacn far about a yaar i.e. from F‘sbrualy 2002 to Fsvrualy 2303, hs was u‘ansfcrred to Kawardha where hg mmaincd for five days and again he was transferrcd and posted at Durg. As the petitioner will be retiring in the month of Novemher, 2004 Le. within hats than two years he made a representation on 20th January; 2003 Annexure P/2 requeSting that as per the Govt. policy he should be posted in his home district or nearbv district in order to settle his family and also to make arrangements for the marriage of childmn. During the short tenure of the petih'oner as Secretary of the Samiti Durg the petitioner has done excellent work and he lie-ally wiped out the middlemen from the transaction. The farmers o the areas are happy anti therefore working of the Samiti is going on smoothly. The Chairperson of the Samiti wants to have her own say in the matter and is encouraging the middlemen, w rich is kuov i to all the members of Samiti. Recently during his tenure the income of the Samiti has been increased. But the President is bent upon harassing the Secretary as she had done with the earlier Secretaries posted in the Samiti at Durg. 10 Samiti secretaries have been changed during the Deriod of three years. The Vice President and other members of the Samiti have submitted a representation before the State Govt. Annexure P/4. The General Administration Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had issued a transfer policy Annexure Pi5 in which the instructions were issued that an employee who is going to be retired within two years on 0;) a?) atmirlmg thc age 0f supcrallnuation, normally should not be tranSfsrrsd. If tramS£r is inevitabls thsn he should be transfsrmd £0 his h m5 dismct or n€arby place. ThE “ctiioncr’s home district is Durg whsre hc is presently po$t€d and hi- ‘ omct wn iS Balod, which falls in distn'ct Duxg. Thergfme‘ f e petitLnar ought not to have been transferred by the impugned order, which is contrary to the Govt. Policy and guidelines. Within a period. of 2% years the petitioner has been traneferred thrice. It is therefore prayed that the Court may call for the entire record relating to transfer of the petitioner and to quash the impugned order (it. 27.6.2003 Annexure Pi 1. Return has been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in which i‘L has been mentioned that transfer is an dence of service. The petitioner has been transferred on the ground of administrative exigency, unless the transfer is yitia ed with m" "“des the c art cannot interfere in it Though “1e ”ovt. has issued instrueti ns that ordinarily an employee nearing retirement should not be transferred away from his hometown but in every case these instructions are not legahy enforceable: More over the terminology of the instnictions are that ordinarily an employee should not be transferred Where he is nearing the age of retirement. The transfer order of the petitioner for his dansfer nom Kajnandgaon to Kawardha was issued on the ground of administrative exigency and in compliance of transfer order the petitioner joined at Kawardha on 29th January 2003. Thereafter the petitioner demanded to he transferred to the Samiti at Durg on his own expense therefore Vide order dt. gm “in u u ‘i The ansWeIiiig respondents have no knowledge about the 7.2.2063 the car"cr ordcr dt. 231.2003 was amended and ths psti‘de‘asr was pogtsd at Burg. 7. AS far as, patitianex’s Claim that during his mnure as $EC. vta‘ 7 of thg Samiti Burg no middlcman was working, it i$ wuumittvd thaV no wiv‘dlcm-sn were Working cithm“ bcfom or .L. working aftcir the tran$fEI of the. patitioner. The petitioner was Incharge of the: past of Secretary ¥'rom 10.2.2003 to 28.6.2003. During thiS period the total anival of agricultural produce m the Samiti was 98 191 quintals Whereas in the previous year duxing this period the total axrival was 222055 quintals. Therefore it is dear that dining the tenure of the petiiioner the alrivals have decreased. G) peiiiioner being harassed by the Chairperson of the Samiti. The petitirner has oee‘1 transfeired to Raipur, which is mereiy 4O km. awny &“m Burg, therefore this transfer cannot be termed as contrary to the Govt. guidelines and policy. The etitioner has been attached with the Rajya Krishi Vipdan Boar“ i.e. Head Quarter of + re Board. The petitioner’s transfer has not been enriched due to the political interferehr‘e The allegations in the. petition are baseless. On the contrary the petitioner has been transferred on account of the administran've exigency. The petiu'on is liable to be dismissed. Return has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 in which it has been submitted that transfer has been made on the ground of administrative exigency. The Respondent No.4 was working as Secretary of the Samiti Kharasia since last three’years and his transfer was mandatory and on / / tnmsfcrrcd pkcc h" h“s ahtady joiricd on 1“ July 2003. Othsr mp1y is almcSt idsnti tbs rsply of the respondents c'” h No.2 and 3. 1O I have hemv‘ Shli Prashant Mishra, leamed counsel for the pctiu'ener, Shri Ranbir Smgh, leazned counsel for the Respondents NQA 2 and 35 .nd Shri Manindra Shn'vastava, hemmed counsel for the Respondent No.4. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down law in number of judgments regarding exercise of judicial review in the matter of transfer of an officerfofticials. 111 the matter of Rajendra Rov Vs. Union of India 85 another, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148 the Hon’bie Apex Court has held that inference of, must be based on firm foundation of facts pieaded and established and not merely 011 insinua‘u'ons and vague allegations-when post is transferable ”id no re‘Tesentation against transfer on Q the ground of perstral h“rdsh"p “ado — Challenge to transfer on the basis of some vamde allegations of mala‘ fides not usminable. In the case of Union of India 6L others Vs. S.L.Abbas repoited in (1993‘ 4 SCC 357 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that transfer is an Lncident of Govt. Service. lNho should be transferred where, is a matter for appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the sanie having regard to exigencies of administration. The f/ K / , ¢\ um; U “’k uh,A nyb [\«n‘v f‘n-uvwt vuuu agajil in the mattcr of N. K, Singh Vs. Union of Ind ”v I“ ars rspoztgd in (1994-) 6 SCC 98 held that intsrfsrs; C” y‘atisd only in cas5s of ma1a &ies or mfractlon 0f any {Jmfesscd norm 0r principls — whcm camsr pmspects Temaln unaffected and no dctv'imcnt is causcd, challenge to _,f' mnqf h? FQPhPWEd Tht‘ Court is not rCquimd to make a mving enquiry into the allegatitms and should sixnply look into the racord onlv. 12. Therefore, in View of the above principles enunciated in the matter of transfer of a public servant, transfer is an incidence of service and when transfers are made on the ground of administrative exigencies, which are not against the statutory provisions, transfer cannot be cha‘lieuged and no judicial leview can be sought against such nansfers. In other words udnsfer order can be chailenged n “ansfer 1s made on account oi mas mal ‘dc and if the scM" 1s contrary to the :c gro spec ily and to substantiate and establish his m A asseon. personal hardship is able. The Court is not not sustain req to go into minute ts and interfere into the transfers; which are made on administrative exigencies. Further While exercising power of judicial review the court is not required to undertake roving enquiry. In View of the above guidelines we look into the case of the if petitioner, has chaiienged his transfer my on two he ainl grounds (i) that he is going to be retired within a peiiod of two years therefore a per the Govt. poiicy and guideline he s s / must remain posted at his home disnict i.e‘ Durg (ii) that he / " rd ni a a"te challenge on mere ve allegations and a'ru nired hing has bccn trarlst‘ l pa thrice vvthm a sham span. 1n order to upprsma v patitmnsr clechn if W€ look into the guidelinw issusd by ths Stats 9f PAuuh‘YG l adagh the r€1€vant guidelinc 1 No.17 , p a1 0+" which ““1935 -at gcncrally oii‘iccrs 0. SD 311d servants who are going to be rcblrcd within a pEIiod of two yaars should not bf; Halls;a.-ad rind if their transfer is esoential/inevitabk: as far as possible they should be posted in their home district or nearby home district. If we look into this provision it seems that the Govt. issued this guideline in order to aliow the employee to settle his family and to make all necessary arrangements at the fag end of his career to lead his retired iife peacefuiiy. This is a guideline for the authorities to take. it to the consideration while issuing ‘u'ansfer orders and not a statutory rule. These guideiines are meant fot the authority to ”just the emplovees as far as f.c possibl" “s has been said Y unless statutory provisions ai M‘a u an employee cannot ch ‘enge his transfer only on the ground that some guidelines are not bein followed. Guidelines does not confer Govt. employee a legally enfomeaele right and whole Lime of a Govt Servant is at the disposal of the Govt, which pays him; and he may be employed in any manner required by the proper authority. These guidelines cannot over ride the administrative exigenoy, which must remain paramount consideration for transfer of an employee therefore; these guidelines are not enforceable as of right. As far as question of keeping an employee at a particular place for a particular term is concerned this is also a guideline that nonnally any Govt. employee should not be; / l4. {I} ( y the lion’ble Supreme Court S for thc mason that frequent mzmy hardghips ie. ths personal 'qcan‘mnisncs as WSJ as family problsms of an €mployee are incmascd by the frequcnt Lreunsfcrs and if thc cmployccs can ‘oV livs peacefully then the employer cannot have legitimate expectatiou From The employee that he should work eWec’n'vely and efficiently. Therefore; there is a reaSon behind fixing tenure of posting but the security of tenure many a fimeS cannot be adhered to 011 the ground of administrative exigencv; for example on account of the promotions of certain employees, on account of the disciplinary actions against employees, on account of certain objectives are to be achieved by the Govt. and which certain employees are. able to achieve y‘. Ul looking ‘LU their past perfonuance and track record. These are 4.1..- f..-__ nu: Lew areas on 'wmcn —_L.'-'I ‘1_A Lue auuioi‘ities -4.’I.. are required to +«n uansiel fa“ tut, 1-.n employee anti these are broader areas in which normally me transfers can take place and if on these grounds few employees are transferred then other employees are also to e affected. 3"{ Other reason behind transfers not only affect the efficiency and. performance of an employee hut it also affects the smooth functioning of the system and over and above financial burden is also increased on the public exchequer and that can be called as wastage of public moneV‘ At the same Time if an employee makes a representation, the authority is required to consider his representation in a objective manner and on consideration of representation if the aut‘noliiy reached a conclusion that grievance of: ecnrity of tenure is that frequent “ W3 C)mplcycc is gait-L36 arld 5"“"c car; bc taken care of while makmg trarLsfsr than ha $hou1d b6 adjusted, of course sub‘bct t0 thc adminisirati‘v’s 5Xig511cy which is ths ultimatc‘ paramount objectivs to mcct. Lacking to thc petitioner’s case in far‘f rm his repltscntation Annexure. 13/2 h€ was adjustad and fm$ted in his home district but it appears that he could not continue there on the ground of administrau've exigency and he was transferred and attached with the headquarter and that too he has been posted at a distance of only 40 km. away from Durg which cannot be in any Way termed as punitive transfer. More over Raipur and Durg are twin cities and lot of employees and other businessman daiiy up and down in both cities. If we Lake exampies of cities like Deihi, Caicutta 85 Bombay, the ovt. employees as well as other employees of the private U)actors daily travel more than IGG—2GG k.m., even more than that; in man" cases to attend their duties. Personal difiieulties of an employee cannot be given precedence over the administrative exigency, as transfer is an incidence of service No employee Pan claim. a particular place of posting as of 1ig__t. Therefore, the petitioner’s petition on this ground has no merit. 18. Now coming to the question of transfer of the petitioner in a short span of period, n‘om Kawardha to Durg transfer of the petitioner was made on his own request therefore he cannot blame anyone for that. Even Kawardha is also adjoining to Durg and Rajnandgaon. As far as transfer of the petitioner is concerned on the ground of malaiide and harassment of the petitioner by the] l. _ IO Chairpcrsar; of “c Sanfti. It is apfgarcrit that bald and vague allegaticm; haw: aen levallsd in this regard. The petitioner has not b55z1 avls to sstaulisuf$uustantiatc his allegations. Moreover, the Chairpersnn 9f the Samiti has not been made a party and Le allegations against --er Without joining her a party Emd giVLng her .11 oppnrmm'fy to rebut these anegations; it is not apprnpriate to placé reliance on these allegations. On the other hal1d the respondents have submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on the administrative exigency and not any other ground. Return of the respondents shows that during the tenure of the petitioner as Secrem'ry of the Samiti at Durg, even arrival of agricuitural produce decreased. For the foregoing reasons I do not lind any force in this petition and the same is uahle to be dismissed and it is 1: 1 dismissed. \N Sd# ‘V L.C.BHADOO Judge