(1) n^ l<yes' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. U6/3 of 2009 PETITIONER Usman Ali, aged about 59 years, S/o Masoom Ali, Patwari, P. C. No. 3, R/o & H.O.-Gopalpur, Tahsil-Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1. ^ ^^^^^ ^-•^~^>v' 2. •f. ?^, ...••-" y" State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector Korba, Dista-ict-Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A. S-l + r-HC—78 '3^ "<ii'4ifi<(, ©Tii-y'ii^,[s<<7)i'y^< —.i^.:..&Ls)..^.t>:..<96l.^... t<14^1sh«4i<!h----'-"<;y-A"'"-"""°?"l-"|-"W^200^) ^ 311^?! 'q^i' ('^Blf3^«T) an^i ^ii M'* t^T 3H^T ^*ii<ti iwiw ^ite? snt^r S.B: HON'BLE JUSTiCE . PRIT UKERDSWAKER' 24-08-200S Shri H.V. Verma, counsel for t( Shri Pankaj ShrivasSava, Panef te petitioner. Lawyer for the State. Khs Challenge in the present writ (Annexure P-1) passed by responde|)t working on the postof Patwari has b^ 3 Gopalpur, Tahsil Pali to Patwari administrative ground. Contention of counsel for th^ retire on 31.5.2010 and as perpoli^ ought not to have been transferred. On the other hand, counsel fcjr Patwari and has been transferredl another, which is not more than 15 posting. He further submits that administrative ground and therefore with. Counsel for the petitioner ver^ of posting he is working since last m4i So far as the policy of the| employee who is at the verge of r^t been made just to facilitate such typ^ retirement so that they may not fac4 retiral dues. !f an employee is transf^r may have some difficulty in processi(ig hj^rfttsrftm^nf Admiltedtv in the itetition is to the order dated 14.7.2009 No. 2 by which the petitioner who is ten transferred from Patwari Haika No. Malka No. 4, Korba, Tahsil Korba on ^trata<itl 'qTRRTf ^ "fe^ <[^i^l<. ^i 3fft?TIT dfl^I petitioner is that petitioner js due to y of the State Government petitioner r the State submits that petitioner is a from one patwari halka number to >. away from his present place of the petitioner has been transferred on ihe present order cannot be interfered fairly admits that in his present place re than four vears. Government for not fransferring an tirement is concerned, the same has of employees who are at the verge of any hurdle for the settlement of their rred from one place to another then he his documents to be finalized before case the patwari halka number of prdsant .-.^y:s% //^' ~\ I. .7' "I J »(^,»-»yHC—78 "Svsisat sii^rw ft-ti* W! 3(1^1 **<i<*> o^:- ^ (^ 's^.^nwi, Q-^WW, P'^'fw'y, qi<<«W'SSNKb •^200 si^si'f^; (yitais?) TOiw^rita 3ii^i •'2-1 the petitioner has been changed biji and the distance is only about 15| affected adversely in any manner a4 of the policy of the Government not| of retirement. Even otherwise, aiso tt and not anv Rule or law. In the facts and cireumstancels in the impugned order dated 14.7.2f)l transfer is an incidence of servic^. substance and therefore it is herel would be at liberty to file represer} raising all his grievances. A< <hl-yf<'1^1*l ^iHcff ^t' fs^ <P»r^n ^'sifiitCTi^i it he has been kept in the same place kms. Thus, the petitioner will not be d therefore he cannot clajm any benefit to shift any pereon who is at the verge ie policy is mereiy executive instruction of the case, 1 do not find any iilegality 109 passed by respondent No. 2 as the '. Accordingly, the petition is without ?y dismissed. However, the petitioner itation before the competent authority Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge —^