HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BltASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT W.A.No. 76 of 2009 Ram Kumar Rathore, S/o Shri R.P. Rathore,aged about 51 years, R/o Bharati Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Additional Secretary (C.G.), Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chotelal Dahire, Sub-Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham. WRFT APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 (1t OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO THE DIVISION BENCHIACT. 2006 Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, tearnedcoynsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamed Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1 & 2. JUDGMENT (27th March, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on admission. ^ !i! ^l fc3 2. Appellant - Ram Kumar Rathore, has filed thiswrit appeal against the impugned orderdated20-03-2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5879/2008. 3. The appellant/ petitioner had filed the writ petition for the followingreliefs: "i) Call for the entire record pertaining to the issuanceof the impugned order dated 10/10/2008 (AnnexureP/1). ii) Hold that the impugned qrder dated 10/10/2308 (Annexure P/1) isarbitrary, illegal and has been issued in contravention to the transfer policy of the state government and issued with malafide intention and withoutany administrative exigencyand therefore liable to be set aside/quashed. iii) Any other relief as deemed frt and proper bythisHon'bleCourt." 4. The appellant/ petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking quashing ofthe order dated 10-10-2008 (Annexure P-1 in thewrtt petition), whereby the petitioner was transferred from DanteWada to Rajim, District Raipur in place of Pathariya, District Bilaspur. 5. Appeltant - Ram Kumar Rathore was posted as Assistant Engineer at Chindgarti, Darrtewada in October, 2007. On his request the appellant was transferred from Chindgarh, Dantewada vide order dated 27-06-2X)8 to Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya, District 6ilaspur. As the appellant could not join at the transferred place i.e. Pathariya, District Bilaspur for a period of more than three months as he was not relieved from Chindgarh, 'KB I L-. ____ """ ^) •-t. Dantewada, one T.P. Patel, Sub-Engineer was given additionat charge of Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya. It was in this background thatappellant - Ram Kumar Rattiore on the date of his joining at Pathariya i.e. 10-10-2008 was transferredtoRajim.DistrictRaipur. 6. RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 intheir counter affidavit have made categoricalaverments to the above effect in paras 3 and 4 which read as follows : "3.0n behalf ofthe answering respondents, it is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1 0/10/2008 whereby the petitioner who was posted as Assistant Engineer at Janpad Panchayat Patharia District Bilaspur was transferred to Fingeshwar (Rajim), District Raipur. Earlier the petitioner was working at Chindgarh, District Dantewada. By order dated 27/06/20)8 on his own request he was transferred to Patharia and thereafter he was relieved from Chindgarh on 08/10/2008 but thepetitioner failed to join his services at Patharla on 10/10/2008. 4. It is humbly submitted that, when the petitioner did not join his servicesat Patharia and the post remained vacant and the work at Patharia was adversely affecting and therefore on 01/09/2008 the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Bilaspur Divisoin informed the Project Offcer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur that one T.P. Patel, Sub Enginer is holding the additional charge of Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat Patharia and the same fact wasalso informed to the C.E.O. ZilaPanchayat that the post of S.D.O., R.E.S. is vacant at Patharia and therefore the order impugned was issued." 7. Shri P.S. Koshy, leamed counsel for the appeltant vehemently efrgued that as the appellant was transferred from Chindgarh, Dantewada to Pathariya on his own request and he could not join at Pathariya for a periodof more than three months 4 41 as he was not reljeved from Chindgarh, Dantewada, respondents No. 1 and 2 have erred in passing the order dated 10-10-2008 whereby the appellant was transferred from Pathariya to Rajim, District Raipur. 8. On due consideration of thesubmisstons of leamed counsel forthe parties; the compelling circumstanees speltoutby respondents No. 1 and 2 in the abovequoted paragraphs 3 and 4 of their counter affidavit leadfng to the appellant's transfer from Pathariya to Rajim, District Raipur; and the reasonings by the leamed Single Judgein the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity either in the orderdated 10-10-2008 whereby the petitioner was transferred toRajim, District Raipur or the impugned order dated 20-03-2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has declinedto interfere in the petitioner's transfer to Rajim. 9. Thewrit appeal, therefore, is liable to bedismissed and is hereby dlsmissed summanl^ SdA Chief Justice nimr Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge