?: ^' IN THE HIGH COITRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUll CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No.'?/ 9 /^ /2006 PETITIONER ^, ^^ •.^^r ^s^> :-,^^-^ r Jitendra Kumar Shrivas , S/o Shri Ram Ratan Shrivas, aged about -40 yrs. Sub. Treasury officer, Pendra Road , Disttt. Bilaspur. (C.G.) i VERSUS RESPONDENTS .-f "v'"' ^^v" <r <?-" The State of Chhattisgarh, through its secretary Dept. of finance and planning D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The secretaiy Department of Panchayat and Rural Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Secretary, Dept. of finance and planning D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQNJCINDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . ^I^^Ei^^^^^% i^: s's;tl'Si^: 8¥SS!S y,'%MW'?Sl ^.^'^^^ HIGHCOURTOFeHIIATTISGARIIATml^SPB^ S.B. : HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. WRIT PETITJON N0,3194 QF 2006 Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Shrivas versus Respondents The State of Chhatrisgarh and others Present : Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Mr. P.Diwakar. Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S.Pawar, counsel for the intervener. ORDER (Passed on 6U1 ofSeptember, 2006) The petitioner was employed as Sub-Treasury Officer, Pendra Road in tiie office of Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pensioa of Finance Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. By impugned order dated 20-6-2006 (Annexure P-1), the services of the petitioner have been sent on transfer to the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Govemment of Chhattisgarh as Assistant Accounts OflBcer, which is equal to fhe post of Sub- A^. .) f. \-^7 Trcasury Cffieer. The^etilionerliasiinp^ dated 20-6-2006 (Aaaexure P-1) on the ground thatservices oftiie petitioner have been sent on deputation and his services cannot be sent to any department on deputation without his consent and as such Ihe order is vitiated. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State, per contra, submits that fhe petitioner is holding the post of Sub- Treasury Officer, which is equal to the post of Assistant Accomits Officer. The employees/officers of Finance Department are posted in all the departments as Accounts OfBcer in different names, namely, Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury Qfficer, Assistant Accounts Officer, Accountants, etc. In the same maimer, Ifae petitioner has been transferred and posted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Project OfEcer, Rozgar Guarantee, Bilaspur. The case ofthe petitioner is not a case ofdeputation but that ofa transfer. The petitioner is canying the same pay-scale and the petitioner would not suflfer on account of his transfer so far as grant of pay-scale, promotional avenues, seniority, etc. is concemed. 3. Mr. P.Diwakar, leamed Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S.Pawar, leamed counsel appearing for fhe intervener, Randhir Singh, who has been posted in place of the petitioner as Sub- Treasury Officer, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, adopts the submissions of ^*. the counsel for the respondents and fiufher submits tiiat Ihe officers/employees of Finance Department are posted everywhere * in all fhe departments to have regular supervision, control, regulation on the financial dealings ofthe department. 4. After having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having perused records, it is evident that fhe impugned order is a transfer order and not a deputarion order. The pay-scale of fhe petitioner and other service avenues, like promotion, seniority, etc. have not be disturbed. The Supreme Court, in Kendnya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodw Prasad Pandey and ofher^, has observed that transfer is an incident of service and it is fpr the employer to post Ifae employee at a particular place in public interest and in administrative exigency. 5. For the reasons above-stated, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2004)128cc299 Gopal