i^^^/:'?:5: '\ ^?tNi;S% "%f' HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH. BILASPUR PETITIQNER W.P.(St No. 3647/2008 R.K. Pradhan, S/o Shri SaKha Ram Pradhan, Aged about 46 years, Working as Labour Inspector, Office of th^ Asstt. Labour Commissioner (State), Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Labour Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) 2 Secretary, Labour Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3 K.B.S. Rathore, Labour Inspector, Office of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (State), Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA Appearance: Shri P.S. Koshy, Counsel for ttie petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. QRALORDER (15.07.20081 SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Labour tnspector, has been transferred from Assistant Labour Commissioner's Office, Bilaspur to the newly formed Labour Officer's Office, Bijapur on administrative grounds. •^SSS^ l'l>., 'itlpssssl 1 ^ "•v// i.'sga^s.i W.P.(S)No.3647/2008 '^^ shyna Learned counsel for the petitioner submifs that presently, there is no office established at Bijapur and there is no such Notification in this regard, therefore, such kind of displacement prior to the Notification is bad in law. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State submits that a newly opened office is there at Bijapur and the. petitioner has been transferred there for further work on administrative grounds. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, 1 am of the opinion that no case for interference with the order of transfer is made out on these grounds. Transfer is an incidence of service, no person working on a transferable post can make hls claim for posting at a particular place. 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 the public interest. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by malafides or extraneous considerations or it is shown to be passed against any statutory Rute or the Act, normaily such orders are not to be interfered by a court of law, is the settled view of the Apex Court in many cases. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not poirrt out any such ground of malaflde or extraneous considerations or that the order has been passed against any Statutory Rule or the Act. So far as the controversy regarding existence of the office at Bijapur is concemed, that can well be resolved by a representation fiied by the petitioner, whlch if so advised, may be filed within a period of 15 days from today and ifsuch a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed by the concerned authority at the earliest in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands finallydisposed of. -__ Sd/- sunilKumarSinha