o^,-2^ 7,^^Singte Bendi WRITPETITION (S)NO. ^63^ OF 2009 N ^y/ QW/ •* .^ - 'f~-_ .<yy <^/ l-<<y Board Colony, Civii Lines, Baloda Secretary, of Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, 2. Deputy Secretary, Pubiic Works , D.K.S. petitioner, S.D.O. : Pubiic ,Works: Department Sakti Sub Divjsion, Dlstrict Janjgir Champa !U ^r- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hoa'ble Mr. Justlce Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4639/2059 'sn^ inWiiilil Ai. PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS Ram Singh Rai Versus State of Chhattisearh & Others Shri Bhaskar F^'asi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amnto Das, P.L. for- the State. WRIT PETITION UBDER ARTICLB 226 OT THE CONSTITUTION OF BIDIA ORDBR 124.8.20091 With the consent of the parties, the matter is beard finaliy. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the petitioner who is working as Assistant Engineer has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Baloda Bazar, Distnct Kaipur to Sakti Sub Division, district Janjgir-Champa (CG). Earlier also the petitioner had.filed a writ petition as W.P.(S) No. 3093/2009 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation against his impugned transfer order dated 27.6,2009. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the direction by this Court, the petitioner has made a representation but the same- has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.8,2009. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been issued just to accommodate respondent No.5 and though the departinental enquiry is pending against the said re^pondent but yet he has been posted in place of the petitioner. He further -^ubmits that while deciding the representation ot' the petitioner vide order dated 18.8.2009 no administrative reason has been & assigned and therefore the impugned transfer order of the petitioner dated 27.6.2009 deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the State submtts that the transfer order and the order dafed 18.8.2009 has been issued in accordance with law and therefore the same cannot be interfered with. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It is a settled law that the transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner by the order impugned dated 27.6.2009 has been transferred on administrative ground. Even the representation of the petitioner has been decided in an objective manner vide order dated 18.8.2009 and therefore I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The petition has no substance and the same is accordingly, dismissed. ^-^ -^r" w