@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3891 of2007 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shrl Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Dr. N.K.Shuk]a, Senior Advocate with Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate forthe State/ respondents l & 2 ORDER (Passed on 11mday of July, 2007) The petitioner, who was working as Senior Agiculture Development omcer, Saja, was transferred on promotion on 22.12.2006 (Annexure P/2). Thereatter, the petitioner joined on promoted post as Assistant Soil - Conservation Oiiicer at Bemetara, District Dung. The petitioner, ’vide the impugned order dated 28.6.2007 (Annexure P/l), has been transferred nom Bemetara, District Durg, to Rajnandgaon,' alongwith 12 more persons due to administrative reasons. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impugn the validity of the order on three grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has been transfen‘edwimin a period of six months, secondly, there was no administrative exigeney PETITIONER : T.S.Pa’wl, son ofLate Sukhlal Patel, aged about 58 years, Asstt. Soil Consarvaxion Omcer, Sub Division Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department 0f Agriculture, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Agiculture Raipur (C.G.) 3. V.P.Choubey, Office of Dy. Director, Agicuiture, Durg (C.G.) @ v and lastly, the petitioner has two years of service leit before the age of retirement. 3. The above stated grounds deserve to be noted only for rejection as the petitioner was earlier transferred on promotion and the ground that there was no administrative exigency and the transfer has been made to adjust respondent No. 3, is not established by any documentary evidence or otherwise, except self-same statement. So far as the petitioner’s service for two years before retirement is concerned: that cannot be the ground for declaring the transfer as invalid as the policy itself indicates that an employee should not be transferred in the last one year before retirement and that too, as far as possible. 4. In view ofthe foregoing, there is no merit in this case. Thus, this petition is dismissed summarily. i Sd/— l Satish K. 1 Agnihotri Judge