^£ IN THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl N0. ^*'^-_/2011 Petitioner Versus Respondents ^ .-••'. f>~ .••• "..•••^•••'' ,.••"'' Raipur-fC.G. ^f^"'^ ^^ lE-i' ^ Vakil Sharma, Aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Shiv Poojan Sharma, Occupation - Platoon Comruander, A-Company, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, Distt. f^ ^. ^,/ 3./- Coinmandant, 6 Batallian, Chhattisgarh Arm Force, Urdana Camp, Raigarh, ^ J5''' Distt. Raigarh-(C.G.) y " 4. ^ The Inspector General of Police, C.A.F. Police Headquarter, Raipur, WRITJPETITION_UNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA U^WSRi",':-^l?;.'..^-^F:.^5S^~-^TK^ ^ Ln HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.37 OF 2011 Vakil Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.P. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 7th of January, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25-12-2010 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur 'A' Company toAmbikapur 'D' Company. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the service period the petitioner met with two accidents in the year 1999 and 2007, as a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the respondent aiithorities posted the petitioner at 6th Batallion, Raigarh, by order dated 15-6-2007 (Annexure - P/4). However, by order dated 12-11-2007 the petitioner has been transferred from Raigarh to Bilaspur. For cancellation of the said transfer order the petitioner submitted a representation. When the said representation was not decided and the payment of salary has not been released the petitioner joined the duties at Bilaspur on 20-3-2010 (Annexure - P/7). Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25-12-2010 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur 'A' Company to Ambikapur 'D' Company. Shri Agrawal submits that the impugned order has been passed only to harass the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to perform the duties on account of injuries sustained by him. The medical officers also advised the petitioner for doing the light work. In view of the*ill health, the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 8-6-2008 (Annexure - P/8), which is pending consideration. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. UiWN«!UAIiUu»<IL—;i.»»liUU*«i i-!»T' ^^^^^^^SSS^'-'. t Gowri 6. It is an admitted position that after sustaining injuries, the respondents posted the petitioner at Raigarh & Bilaspur. Even the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 12-11-2007 for a period of about 214 years. He has only made an application for cancellation of the order dated 12-11-2007. From the said facts it appears that the petitioner has not obeyed the orders passed by the higher authorities. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil- Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothei2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofil.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, if a representation is made by the petitioner, the State is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law on the humanitarian grounds as aforestated. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 1974(4)8cc 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3 (1995)33cc270 4 (2007)83cc 150 5 (200?) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC-337