s::;;r% •p.'.^'^y v.^t-y "'«\. I-HC-22 ^'i\\' "v< sn^r^n k-U'b 3D^?r ^Hl<ti ^\^t ~S:Sf ^]<||c|<<, »Tfl'y'16, I«IC1l'M>j.< ani^r "qg^; tlllCTI ^,^q,"———••-———————<^F^ 200 'I^^I" 3ii^i?<giwHfe (Sinale Bench: Honble / Writ Petit PErmoNER RESPONbENTS (PetitionundeF Art.226 Jee Shr Aka -Versus- 1. 2. 3. 4. 11.12.2008 Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for 1| Mr. Ajay Bqrik, Adv. appearj Sovernmeht Standing Counsel for resj Mr. P.S. Koshy, Adv. with Mr. \( This petition is directed againj 3) whersby the petitioner has been to Rajbandh Cement Factory, l-1imach[ 2.9.2003 whereby the petitioner Factory for his transferred place. This petition has been filed impugned order has been passed ^T^f^l^ ITP^iif T? 1^^ <r;H+$R ^sii5<n sii^i r. Jystice bhirendra Mishra) on No. 2821/03 f227 of Constitution of India) Singh Kshatriya, aged about 51 years, son of baani Singh, resident of Purani Basti, 1-arc, Distt. J'anjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. pnion of India, through: Secretary, bepartment of Mines, New belhi. :ement Corporation of India Ltd., through its ^hairman, Core-5 Spoke Complex, Lodhi Road, New Eielhi. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Akaltara Branch through the Seneral Manager, Akaltara Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.6. Deputy Manager Personnel, Corporate Office, ^ement Corporation of India Ltd., New belhi. he petitioner. on behalf of Mr. S.K. Beriwal, Central londent No.l. Deshmukh, Adv. for respondent No.2 to 4. it the order dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure P- ransferred from Akaltara Cement Factory il Pradesh and also against the order dated been relieved from Akaltara Cement rtas >y the petitioner on the ground that the n|ialafidely in contravention of the service XI-HC-22 sn^f^ii R-il'* SS^V ?n*iich ^fia ',§:!a9^Sst ""^s h 'S^ -^MM^, u-Aww, hwwy. 3ni?r iRra? NI»RfTSb*fra» •^ 200 ^e^sT" 3D^i's^iiwgfer ^ conditions of the petitioner as C\ stipulates right of employer to transl Respondent-Cement Corporatii on oath that Clause 5 of the original of which has been filed as Annexure liable to be transferred at the soli anywhere in Indiaor to any branchA the Corporation and the same was ne\ Without entering into the appointment order filed by the Corporation, this Court is of the op Annexure P-8 was passed in the yea^ /! this Court and in that view of the m< after passing of impugned order, n< necessary. Accordingly, the petition is di^i chl^Id<fll TTTR^ff ^ l^^ <^t1W.R ^sipOTsn^i |iuse 5 of the appointment order which :^r its employee has been deleted. |n of India Ltd., in their return have stated appointment order of the petitioner, copy |R-1, clearly mentions that the petitioner is discretion of the respondent Corporation ffice/project/section/department/ unit of ler deleted. controversy regard'mg veracity of the Ipetitioner and also by the respondent |nion that the impu9ned transfer order of 2003, there is no stay order granted by itter after a lapse of more than five years order on merit in the instant petition is rnissed as having become infryctuous- Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Btl