_s (^ .f. ^00 !'"a'1 IN TH6 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIOR No.^9 ^^72005 P&TITIONER / G. D. Prasad aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Mohan Prasad, R/o Village Kargi Road, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur VERSUS RESPQNDBNTS 2.0 c.l'3^ / 1. The State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministryof Labour, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur •^^b^f^]^Z^.- ^- l........''-"""'""'""^""" Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Raipur / 3. labour Commissioner, Raipur. WRIT PBTITIONU»tI>ERARTICI-E236ASD2270FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4f u HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. W. P. No. 4945 of 2005 Petitioner : ©.&.Prasad Versus Respondents : The State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Shri Par<»9 Kotecha, Adyocpte for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, 6ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents. O R D E R (Passed on 8th of September. 2006) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working as Inspector in the office of the Assistcnt Labour Commissioner, Bilospur, by order dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure P/l), was transferred in the same copacity To the office of Labour Officer, jagdalpur. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challen9in9 the impugned transfer order dated 22.9.2005, whereby the petitioner was tronsferred from the office of the Assistcait Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur to that of LabQUr Officer, Jagdalpur. 3. This Court, while issuing notice, granted interim stay of the impugned orderdated 22.9.2005 (Annexure P/l). The petitioner -^ has continued on the same place of posting in Ihe office of the «w n: yo y \- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur for about a year by virtue of the interim order granted on 7.10.2005 4. In the factsof the case, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the iinpugned order at this 3+090 in detail. However, respondents/authorities are expected that they would not insist upon complionce of the impugned transfer order dated 22.9.2005. 5. The respondents/authorities have liberty to post an employee at a parl'icular place in the public interest as well os in administrative exigency, in accordance with law. 6. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is cui incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where.a particular officer/employee is to be posted in the interest of administration and public. This Court has limited Jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters and this Court COOT interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of the cuthority is passing the transfer order, oaid order not being in conformity with the rutes and regulations. 7. For the reosons stated-above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotri -~'~ Judge r1'-