ak g Cf'W/j \& IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR $9 ?‘l0F 2010. smGI-E 5EN3H i g w. P. (S) No. i 1 , D. g Kanmauje, S/o. late Shri ‘ { ) , ' 59 Kashi years, Ram GEircle Kannauje, Superintendent, aged about Public Woriks Department, Division Kanker , District Kanker x J“ ‘ (C. G.) i ?in i 2 § i v E R's U s ‘ : RESPOjNDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhavvan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Engineer—in—Chief, Public Works Department, .Raipur, District Raipur (C. G.) girfwv [Waumm I , ; IWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ' CONSTITuTION OF INDIA } E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT ILASPUR H B WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6977 of 2010 PETITIbNER : R.D.Kannauje. : T; ’ ’ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another. i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THJ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aginihouj, J. 1 Shrl Somkant Verma, Advocate tor the petitioner Shrl M P S Bhaua, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents . ORAL ORDER I (Passed on w...“ 17 day of February, 2010) 1 Challengein this petition is to the order dated 8.2.2010 (Annexure P/l) ; whereby the pettttoner workmg as Ctrcle Superintendent Public Works Depaitment, Kanker has been transferred to Pubhc Works Department, Q National Highway D1v1310n, Bilaspur. ‘ A , \ L' The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, while working as Circle) Superintendent at Kanker, was promoted to the post of Division? ‘Superintendent vide order dated 5.11.2009 (Annemlre P/6) and was ' transferred to the office of Chief Engineer; Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Raipur. Thereafter, the‘petitioner vide his i letter dated 26. 1 1 .2009 (Annexure 'P/7) declined to accept the promotion for ever. The said letter was duly accepted by the respondent authorities ‘ Thereaiter, the petitioner was transferred to Bilaspur Vide order dated: 8.2.20 10 (Annexure P/l). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is at the verge of retirement, he declined to accept the t Present: i promotion to the higher post and was willing to serve at Kanker itself as ‘ ‘ ‘ 9111? one year is leii for his superannuakon and his whole family is ‘ :resiEding at Kanker. Shri Verfna submits v at there is no administrative Eexiéency as no person has been transferred in place of the petitioner at Kanker. Since the formalities with regard to pension and retiral dues are l i § I I ~ to start two years prior to the date of retirement and only one year is left 'tbrgsuperannuation, the impugned order (iJated 8.2.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from. Kanker to Bilaspur, 'maiy be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to serve at Kanker 95 ‘itself. 4. Onthe other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate forfthe State/respondents submits that‘the‘ petitioner; has declined to ' accept the promotion. However, there was no condition or reason, whatsoever, mentioned in the letter dated 26. l 1.2009 (Annexure P7) for ' declining his promotion on the gound that there would be no transfer . horn Kanker to any other place. e ties e . a ot o ta e le clin e protn high it ut a on a h l r or e. r l n o toie le accept the pomtn fo ever. Th conntin that ere is no roio r e teo th dmintive eigncy as no oe has been tanferred in pace off i petiioner is concerned, iis for the Government to decide and mange l t t' \ a to rn the admitraton Furthr, the frmliies wth read to pension V, u nisi. e oat i gr can b done anwhere, irrespectiv of te ace f postg [of an‘ \ e y e h pl o in aistra xe n rs l i 5. l I have heard learned counsel appearing for th par, perused th > i pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6 On perusl fhe dcuments, it is apparent ht th whi deing th i omio to the er post, the petioner has not p ny cdition L tht e woud not be transfered to any the place than Kankr It was a lette simpicitor informig the respndent auhrtis that he decins to x I ‘ - §emf)loyee. The petitioner has not pointe out any manifest error in the 1 i gimpugied order. The petitioner has not impugned the transfer order on i any other adtmss1ble grounds 1 e mala fide lack of competence of the i ofhcer passmg the order, or breach of statutory rules or regulations t ) l 1 7. t 1 t x It s a tnte law that transfer 1s an meldenje of servrce The Court should not mterfere wrth the transfer orden unless there 1s a mahce I inhingement of statutory rules and regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the order. ln the caise on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any ofthe aforestatcd grounds. The employee may be i ‘ posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and, administrative exigency. Thus, the irnpugied transfer warrants no; i niterference (See EPRoyappa v Staté of Tamil Nada and another]; Shzlpl Bose Mrs ) and others v State ofBzhar & anotherz State ofMP and another v S S Kourv and other? Moha’ Masood Ahmad v State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway? Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ramam & Others5 and Airports Authorinii oflndla v Ra}eev Ratan Pandey & Others ) 8. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there is no merit in the case and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. “ it ” Sdl— , K. Agnihotn \ \ ‘ Satish Judge ‘ \ ‘ 1 #*’1:,‘ ” w \ 1974 (4) scc 3 (1991) Supp 2 soc 659 1995) 3 scc 27o \\ (2007) 8 scc 150 (2007) 8 scc 212 (2009) s soc 337