. gm Ljzegaw ’LN ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WT PETITION N0. 4—3 lo OF 2004 PTIONER ETI C.P. BHARDWAJ S/ SHRI P.R.BHARDWAJ , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, (RANGE OFFICER ,SAKTI) R/o. TAH. SAKTI, DISTRICT, JANJGIR - CHAMPA (C.G.). STATE OF CHHTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, DKs BHAVAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER ,JANJGIR—CHPA DIVISION ,GON.OF CHATTISGARH C.G. ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OE THE CONSTITUTION jA é DIRECTION mIRETIONs, ETC. OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF PPROPRIATE WRIT/ WRITS ORDER/ORDERS The Petitioner most respectfully'begs to submit as under;- 21. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIOMR :- As shown in the Cause Title. 22. PARTICULARS OF THE RP- ESONDENTS: ‘»\ w O A AM V H M EW XI<HC—78 W §m$ w? “Cm lm... M200 aimm (1m) mavmanaa anés1 am Wat? am snéelWm; WW‘#%W aaWanésT 9.5.2005 I Mr. MK. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, Mr, Sudhir Agarwal, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. ' By this writ 15etitbn under Artide 226/227 of the Conetitution of India the yetitioner has questioned the transfer order dated 10. 11.2004 (An nexure R4) passed by respondent No. 1 dated 4.32.2004 (Annexu’re P—é) paSsed by respondent No.2 asking ihe petitioner to handover the charge in pursuance of the order dated 10. 1 1.2004. Brief facts leading to fih'ng of this petition are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Forest Officer :in‘ Korba Division from Where he was transferred to Janjgir-Champa Division on 28.62000 by respondent No.1. vide order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure RE) respondent No.2 transferred the petitioner from Akaltara Range to Baradwar Range and in compliance of the order of respondent No.2, the petitioner joined his duties at Baradwar on 6.9.2004. However, within a period two ' months the pe’titioner was again transferred from Akaltara Range to Raigarh Division vide impugned order dated 10.11.2004 (Annexnre P—4). Heard both the comm w as also order Thereafter, Therefore, the petitioner’s main grievance in this writ petition is that he has been transferred twice within a span of four months and the said transfer has been made in violation of order dated 18. 10.2004 (Annexure P—5) whereby the State Government issued the order that the transferred employees m WW; ........................\ .......... 111200 anéarm (W) aimlmWm am snésmmia? mawmamst g g mm#%m£ 2‘ a5man'a21 should join their dutes on the new place of posting by 23. 10.2004 and themafter, 110 transfer should be made except in exceptional cases. The other point raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner’s Wife is a patient of Harnia and she has been advised to ' undergo an operation, therefore, by this transfer medical treatement of his Wife will be affected. Reply has been frled on the behalf of the respondents-State in which it has been mentioned that earlier transfer orders passed in the year 2000 8a 2004 we re made after completion of three years tenure by the petitioner at ihe respective places and the transfer in question cannot be consicered as mala tide and illegal, as the petitioner has already worked around about 3 years as Forest. Officer in Janjgir—Champa Division, therefore, ”he has been transferred to Raigarh Division. It has been further mentioned in the return that it is for the concerned authority to see that Where an employee is to be transferred and at What time he is to be transferred and transfer in question is not a malafide transfer as the same has ben made in administrative exigency. It has been further mentioned that the disease of petitioner’s wife is not a serious disease which requires regular watch. Ultimately, it has been prayed that the petitic n of the petitioner be dismissed. y Learned counsel for the pettiioenrargued that vide order Vdated 31.7.2004 (Annexure iD—S)’ the petitioner was transferred from Akaltara to Baradwar and in pursuance of that he had joined at Baradwar. However. WEthin a shert span of three months he SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 “? WM Irma! amiai 111200 ....‘." ...Q... T.’\.§‘.\..\‘.\.§\.\m 1mm amim “71200 r ‘ mam?! Raw ' amanwm mm vfza anéa mm'§%@m w r ’ emanaa In the matter of State o “It is not for any Go once appointed or position, he should as long as he desir onlv an incident inh but also implicit as. the absence‘of any the law governing o flde exercise of pox provision or passed do so, an order of tr with as a matter of type of grievance so servant cannot d authority to transfer place in public inte exigencies of service affected adversely a career prospects su secured emolument ' The Apex Court furthe ‘ “The Courts or Trib W‘decisions in the COmpetent authori allegations of mala to inspire coniide concrete materials a the mere making of conjectures or su ‘f U.?. and others V. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 AER SC 2082, the Hon‘ble Apex Court held that: ernm ent servant to contend that sted in a‘ particular place or ontinue in such place or position . Transfer of an employee is not rent in the terms of appointment n essential condition of service in pecific indication to the contra in conditions of service, Unless the order of transfer is s own to be an outcome of a mala er or violative of any statutory y an authority ‘not competent to nsfer cannot lightly be interfered curse or routine for any or every ght to be, made. An officer or a arive or deny the competent a particular onicer/ sewant to any est and is found necessitated by s long as the official status is not 1d there is no infraction of any h as seniority, scale of pay and s u held that: nals cannot substitute their own atter of transfer for that of ies of the State and even des when made must be such as in the Court or are based on d ought not to be entertained on 't or on consideration borne out of ses and except. for strong and SP/FS/2005 ~ 20,000 antsW (We) 1 e n r o i XI~HC~78 ..::QL...T.”\..T§;\.$.‘.\?.~.\ 1mm mnw 111200 311% W (W) 31mm?!W mmeTm m$mma '39 ‘ maimlqmqé‘f m§1§§W '“ convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” In the matter of Kend ‘a Vidyalaya $angathan V; Damodar hasaé ?andey and other reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5563 the Hon‘ble Apex Court held th t: “Transfer Whi is an incidence of service is not to be interfer with by the Courts unless it is shown to be c1 ,aly arbitrary or vitiated by inala fldes or infrac ion of any prescribed norms of ‘ principles gover 11mg the transfer,” In the light of above, if we look into the facts of the present case, the petitioner has n t been able to plead and establish any mala fide action on the p rt of respondents & the only groun raised by the petitioner i that he has been transferred twice i Within a short span of per'od i.e. 3 months. In the first instance, that cannot be made a g nd for challenging the transfer order unless and until it is sh W11 that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfers Withou any rhyme 0r reason. It is admitted position that the petitioner had served 3 years in 'Korba Division &. 3 years in Janjgir—Cham a Division. However, vide order dated 31vl2004 (Annexure P—4) e was transferred Within the Janjgir— from Akaltara Range to Baradwar ugned order dated 10.11.2004 the petitioner has been trans rred from Janjgir—Champa Division to Raigarh Division and the stance between these two places is not h Chani‘pa Division itself i. . Range. Thereafter, e vide r y c‘ e d r u p Vi W wnm 111200 M W‘xxk j 31mm (W) mamanw mm#wm ._g/ $3r§wanw more than 45 Km, ag/has been disclosed during The course of argument that vide impugned order only the division of the: petitioner has been Changed; therefore, this matter does not fall in i the category of frequent trimsfers. As far as the question of transfer against the policy is concerned, it is true that vide order dated 18.10.2004 (Annexure P6) the State Government banned the transfer, however, in Para 4 it was made clear that in exceptional cases the transfers can be made and in reply of the State also it has been mentined that the impugned transfer order was issued in the administrative exigency, Perusal of impugned transfer order shows that by impugned order not only the petitioner has been transferred but the Forest Divisons of several other officers have been changed. Earlier, the petitioner was working in Janjgri-Champa Division and vide impugned order he has been transferred to Raigarh Division. The other ground rased‘by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wife of the peti "oner is suffering from Hernia and she is required to undergo an o ration. But, it has not been pleaded in the petition that Baradw r is a place where some good hospitals are available so the pres nce of his wife is required there. The distance between the two alaces is so small and even otherwise at‘ Baradwar no proper hosp tals arle available for the said operation, the petitioner in either ase to take his wife for treatment to: Raigarh, Bilaspur or Ra pur where good medical facilities area SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 g ‘ Xl-HC<78 m §m$wg.%\‘\\ .Xm’j 1.11200 31W W (1W)