r p- •") (---' ITiTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 W.P(S) Mo.SS&5r../20ll PETITIONER: ..^ T-^^y _^y/ ^•y..--"" ^w / ..••' A/V)^ Ravi Lonkar Aged about 49 years, S/o Shri D.G. Lonkar, R/o- Duplex-27, Babji Park, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur (C.G.) <-^~ •^'\<?>" <;%^* .*?'' /^ <y\ '\ VERSUS ^".^ ..';••' tf>~ RESPONDENTS: /'^^?€ j,; jj> ' S!si'm<fi'js.n.] , jj -3\ / ff~'f ^ ." 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Through Chief Regional Manager, Regional Offfce, 1st Floor, R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road No.l, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Centre, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO N OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTION S: - AF^. ^, f?-9-lf HICTH COIJKT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFiTR PETmONER WRTT' PETmON (S} No. 5565 of2011 B-avi Lorikar. VRRSUS RESPONDENT8 The ~iemai Lmiited & A.iiother InsiH'ance CoiTtDanv WKIT PETTTION LTNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONS'ITr^mON OF E\TDIA i"50: iRiSIi' 3? Present: Shri M .,f— (Passed on 19'" day of September, 2011) Challenge ia this oetitioa is to the. order dated 12.08.2011 {ABnexiire P./l) whereby, the petitioner, workiiig as Development OfEcer (Admmistra'tion) {for short, "the DO (AAriTi.)"} Bilaspur, iias been transferred to Br: arounds. 5ce. Jaedalpiir. on admin.islSrativ< The mam contention ofthe leamed couasel for Ihe petitioner is that the trausfer ofthe petitioner is nolative oftransfer ai »Dltltv policv for the DO ('Adam.) ('Aanesaire P/3'> for transfei' from one u.iui.uer sia ^.u policy wtierem it is 1 Siddiqus reties oa clause ;>,4 ot ttie ;e from oae stMion to a'dmariiv be restrict.ed to a radius of 150 ii tns present station ot po 5.4 ofthe oolicv. it. is orovidedthat. ifno office ofthe company is avaiiable within a radius of 150 Kms Irom the present station of posting of a DO (Admn.) required to ba traiisfeired. the Competent Aiithoritv' mav consider his traasfer to anv ofthe three nearest. stations. deoending uoon the orsanizatiana.i 2 requirement.s, wfaere fhe company has its office. This contemplates discretion t.o be exereised by the officer of 1'he company. The Cha.imiaa-cum-Ma.na.^ng Director ofthe Company is empowered to def.ennine. the requirement and need of the CampaBy m its various -offices at varioiis stations S'o'ai 'time fo time. CIause 5.2 of the policy provides that every employee in fhe cadre of DO (Admn.) shall be liable to transfer to another starion as per fhe oreanizationa.1 needs in terms of the policy. Ciause 5.4 of the policy is not mandatory, but it depends on the organizational reauirement and need offee comoanv. 4. There is no dispute that the posi. of DO ('Admn.) is a traasferable posA aad it can be transferred to any other station as per the orea.nizatioBa.l needs in terms of Ifae policv. Clause 5.4 of the policy is a. mere euideline and the same are not controlle4 by statirtory provisioas. The effect thereofis advisory in character and thereby no legal ri.At is eonferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercwl Mcfnager, South Central Railway, Sew.ndarabad 'S: Others v. G. Ratnair. & Other^'}. 5. The petitioner has not cha.llenge'd llie impugned tra&sfer order on any otlier permissible legal ground i.e. violatioB of aay st<»tirton' roies or regiilations or lack of competeace of the oiBcer, passing the impugned order. 6. It is a!so weU-settied that transfer is an ineidence of service and it is for the emolover to decide asto where a narticular ofBcer/ emrilovee be post.ed, keeping in view public im.erest as well as organizauorsai aeed. Ttes Court has luriitedjurisdictioc to mterfere (2007) 8 SCC 212 witli the tra.nsfer matter exceot in the cases of oro'v'ed mala ftcle.. non-eompeteace of authority passing the transfer order and not beina ia coufonnitv with fhe nries and reaiiations. The petitioner/emplovee camiot be permitted t.o remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service niles, employer has all the powers to post an emplovee ai a particular place in view of public mterest, admirustrative exigeney and organizational needs. (See J7 P ^?^"'.''/??^??/? t; ^'f^f^ /~sf T'^iyyiil \I^f:kt -/???.'^ n'ys^tJ/ap'!'^' ^Jys'ffys^ /'vf T'yt/^i^! *^.'^^>'yt^i^^'^4 f"> Ah/^v^T-G' \^f A ^if^S-Siv ^ » ^&Ut&ik ^^fi-vS L^r*</£f*^; ^ l^/f^frv^^^ ^/f ^/^T^*^^fr <y"w /??5/^ /'*T't.-^?^^?' t? Jrs'i'^rsy^^/^i" r^'y^^y?^!^ /?'- rs'y^.^tksv^ ^c.fr'tf£> ryf ^..^ P .•'???/'? '^S-ra^t Wtf^VS-fVS^i »•"«t^ ^iftt^t t^-f Z-f^ft-^-^"i'tj'l^fiV^-t-Fi I.A.. tri;r?k/£f*S/f ,1 lU'Cl-lSS' ^/^ ^.(/^•^ » i^lfK^ /?>- rs^nthy-^'' ^fr-^ another v. S.SJCourav a'i ^ fsth^r.<? snd k-'f^hf3 ^-Anvnni^ Ah'ynn.^ y.. ^ ^?fr?^^J fc; ^hAiilA^?- ^V^V^-/i^4.., IV^vihf^"^^^ A 1,? A-^v£v»^ ^+ f State ofU.P. & Otkers5). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordinglv dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ArmE