(4) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH H AT BILASPUR (CG) w. P. (S) No. .5.E%...(2009 (Division - Bench Service Matter) Ministry of Railway Through : General Manager South East Central Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. ‘éENERAL y MANAGER South East Central Railway g Bilaspur (C.G.) /u 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER South East Central Railway Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) ,t/' 4. SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER South East Central Railway Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) / PETITIONER P. K. IENA (Applicant) aged about 39 years S/o Shri B.N.Jena, R/o Quarter N0. 1003/4 North East Rly Colony, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. UNION OF INDIA §0 Per Prashant Kgmar Mi§hra. ‘J :1 V in this writpetition underArticlevm of the Constitution oi india the petitioner, who isv an,,Assistant Electric Driver,,in'the,:South East r Central Railway haslmadeiaipl’aller for setting aside the order dated 29-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) new by the Centre! Administrative Tribunai, Jabaipur Bengh! cigcuii ewng ,at;:,Biiaspiir_(henceioni; ‘the Tribunai') in OANo/1/39/2007 lnthe said original ”application, the V petitioner hadchallenged communication dated 14¢8-2006Vwas weii‘as a-ezoos (Annexures A-i and A—zin the ,originai appinaiion) rejecting his representation and hadsoughtwa direction from thegTribunai to declare his transfer from Chakradharpur Divisionxtg‘ Biiespur on i w administrative grounds With all consequential benétits; 2. The Tribunal. by the impugned order datedl29-72008 (Annexure 3I3). ‘ ~ has dismissed the. original . applicationtafterrmrsiing the finding i J J J i i J J i HIGH couRT OF cHHATTIsGARH a BILAsPUR; DB: Hgg’bie‘ sari gu&' §ggish K. Agmhom gnu Hon’ble §Qri Just'g Prgggnt Kmr Mishra r» I grit Egg'ggg ‘ (s4 Noig of 203g, ‘ H Shri V.G.Tamasiga_[, counsei fotthg petitioner. Shri P.S.Kosny, counsel for the respondents; 0 R E R ( l§‘-12-2009) P&' ioner P.K.Jena yerst§ gespgndents Q/V that perusal of order dated 3-6-1 997 aswell as: 12-1 1_-1 997. reveals that his movement and transfer to Bitaspur Division was “atgfhisown request”. it has further beenmobserverd‘by the Tribunal that‘fin other words, it is not a case of interfdivisional, transfer based on administrative groundstgr 9n somnassionatebassistliatherlwelement of request is the‘primeaiconsideration. _lt is,/we\ll,settled%prrovlsion ,Qt rules that when a person istransfened,intsr-divlsional Onhisownrequest he has to accept bottom seniority in the transferred division; Such being the factS. we do, not find any illegality or arbitrariness in respondents? impugned communication dated 8-8-20u6 and 14%2006 ' rejecting his request”. 3- Before this Court, it hasttbteea“persuaedd“;bttthe damsel forlthe petitioner that Annexure P-2 which is a communication ,dated22-4— 1997 issued from the oftice of Assistant Electrical Engineer V(0P)/BNDM to the seniors,Divisional,.E|octrioa.l ,gEtngineer 91°F), Chakradharpur recommending v petrtloner'srequest “to consider his inter-divisional transfer on the ground thatyon17-2-1997 when the V petitionerwas comingron, dutyrat 23:50_,hours cheet_,.wa§.,eltaoke.dtbv miscreants on wai'to‘fstation and there was southebetween the misoreants and thogpetitioner inwhioh molrpietitioner sustained iniuries. 0n account of the incident,_there wasehuee andcryyand agitation by Assistant Drivers of Rourkela who threatened to suspend the train operation, However, timely “action and reportingwto G._R.P. saved undue agitation. The miscreantswerethreateningjhepetitioner with dire consequences According to the petitigner, the incident occurred l/on 17-2-1997 was the root cause of his transferkwhich is an u Q} administrative ground and._ therefore, the order} oftlansfeg passed on 11414997 (Annexure D4 $ed _ application, dated 7-9Wr200‘9f0f taking dwumenis 0n £e¢9fdlnmn°tbe treated as an order Passed at‘his OWn request. Per contra, the 909M! {appearingfor the respondents urged that a bare perusal of the transfer order dated 11 there is specific mention at ,N.B. 3)_that arranged as, pervhis Own request thereforetinyiewpf this the torder dated 11-1 1-1997 has been issued at the requestot the _petiti9ner_and not on administrative grounds. Counset for the respondents has‘reiied 4. -1 1-1997 woutd reveal that “the transfer of Shtt Jena is t on Ciause 5 of Master Circutar No.24 oaptioned ask Transfer of Non- _gazetted Raiiway Servants'. ‘ Ciause 5.2 a thereofwis relevant for considering the issue before us which reads, as under: “5. length of service and status , in _ the new former unit unit." irrepective of ther s i (m ..,4.— 5. In the matter of Akports Authority of Imitaysa Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others‘. the Hon'ble Supfeme Court has .held that “in a matter of transfer of a Government employee. scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly. be it at interim stage or final hearing._ This is so because the Courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer”. 6. When the facts available in the present caseare examined inthe light of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble;$upreme ' Court in the above referred decision! it appears that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in dismissing the original application tiled by the petitioner. ”We, therefore, do not tind the submission made by the petitioner convincingvand worth interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. ,_ ’ l Sd/ Sdl- Judge ' Judge [l Satish K. Agnihotei Prashant Kumar Mishra l l 1 (2009) 8 SCC 337