> ® \ @ ' ’; /co% ‘IN THE HoN'BIE HIGH comm car cmmmIsasaRH M BILgsPUR (cm) w.P. 2&7 8 /2005. PE Tl‘l‘ IONER u Smt. Suni'ka Verma W/o Rajendra Kuma? Varma, 4Aged about 36 years, R/o sector-lo, 313.3 0/2c Bmkinagw’DiSt% .Durg (C 0G~ )0 Versus. (l) State of Chhattisgarh, Threugh Secretary, W li‘are Hea th & Depw. D.K.s. Bhawan, Raipur. (2) Chief Medical Officermeauh 0££icer, Distt .VHcs pital,nu:~g. RES POMJENTS u ETIIEON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEE CONSTIWUTION 05" INDTA. P w9'00 Q$'>r% wmw a $ WW;WW > $F1200s~ ‘m $wa%%$ a) 311wWW Franmam v rmmwmw 14.07.2005 Mr. T.K.’Tiwari, learned Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, lea e’d Panel Lawyer for the Staie of Chhattisgarh. Notice was issued on 29. 6.2005 when Mr. Wvek Sharma, tateappeared and accepted the notice for respondents. No reply as been fuled til! date. Learned counsel appeari g for respondents prays for two weeks time, as last adjournment. to file reply of the respondents. Time is granted. M.(W).P.No.2202 of 2005 This is an application for Learned counsel for the p titioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been pass d contrary to the provisions of Transfer Policy 2004-05. Clau e 4 of the policy prof/ides that a governmentremployee be poste at a place for minimum period of 3 years as far as possible and if’ f ‘1 dwmR A $Wané31 nsel for the petitioner. learned Panel Lawyer for the ant of interim relief. transfer is made on the basis of some complaint, the transfer b made on the basis of preliminary enquiry. Learned counselforth petitioner further submitsthatthe impugned order dated 29.04.005 provides for transfer of the person who were getting salary from other health centre-but in the case of the petitioner, she was etting salary from Ruabandha itself not from Khursuni, Gunderdehi, istrict Durg. Thus in her case, the order dated 29.04.2005 is bad a d illegal.. ; ><liHc—78 QQ) ¥Fi2005‘ ené'nm%=n‘z5 - 3211 “mm. Wmm‘am mamaa ' Learned counsel for the respondents submqts that the order dated 29.04.2005 is an inciderce of service and there is no malafrde exercise of power in tra ferring as many as 38 persons including the pethioner from one lace to other place. Grievance of the petitioner is that other pers have been transferred becaus their salary was notrdrawn fr the old place of posting. The petitioner will be getting. her sala from the new place of posting. lt is further contended by the lear ed counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot be aggr eved on the ground that she was getting salary from one place o other place. The. petitioner is .getting the same salary and other benefits as she was getting at the old place of posting. After having heard leam d counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am of the pinion that there is no violation of- clause 4 of the Transfer Policy 2 4-05 because clause 4 does not provide for a ban from transferri g from one place to other place within a period of 3 years. The cl use 4 simply provides that as far as possible a government emp yee Ishould not be transferred within a period of 3 years. ln he' present impugned order,‘the also been transferred. Thus his transfer is on account of administrative exigency and not i exercise of malafde power It is well settled principles of law tha in case of transfer the Courts should refrain from interfering nless it is established that the exerCIse of power to transfer an mployee was malafde or Without havmg competence to transfer t e person ln the resent case ‘ petitioner alone has not been tr nsferred but other persons have s o e o p Xl-HCA78 mqi$ M. :9. LOP. . aégg $15— snéatm (gafgaa) I i ’ am‘gjmwiai mewrfémw mmé1%aanést ,_ 3 ’ aa'waam '#%@ ay ffer o there is no allegation of malaflda and dmittedl the oic wh passed the transfer order is comp etent to pass this order. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd- / Satish K. Agnihotr Judge W 200 WWWW i