;1F ^V. "\~5^TCT ^g:;M^^ ^'c»--«tl2'^^-'\ ,.,";. .'tibanal, ^ 3 BEFOKE IHE HON'BLE STATB ABMINISTRATIYE TRJBUNAL, RAIPUR BENGH RAIPUR (C.G.) /,, ,„, , , ,.^,, .-, C^W3'6i^L In the aatter of O.A.No.____^l]_ _/2001 "'~'_^—:-——•—' &PPLIG&NT VERSIB NON-&PPLICANTS Harku Ram Netam, 52 years son of Shri (Late) K.R.Netam, Presently Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Jagdalpur. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, througb Princl.pal Secretary Panchayat Awam Sanaj Kalyan Vibhag Mantralaya, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur. •Z- Und.er Secretary (Awar Saehiv) Panchayat Graain Vikas Awam Samaj Kalyan Vibhag Mantralaya, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur. 3 Gomaissioner Panchayat Awaa Samaj Kalyan Vibhag Mantralaya, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur ^ Collector, Dxstt. Jagdalpur. &PPLIC&TION U/s_. 19 _OF_ADMINiaiTRA'riVE TRIBUN&L ACT. Ihe Petitioner respec-tfully subaits as under s- 1. Particulars o-C the The Details o£ the petitioner is Petitioner. furnished in the cause-title of the Plaint. ^ 2. Particulars o-f the The details s£ respondents are Respondents. furnished in the cause title of the Pe'tition. Contd.....2 H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S^ No. 3S48 of 2005 ^ Petitioner Harku Ram Netam Vereus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Generat with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondente/State. ORDER ( Passed on this 9 day of Maroh, 2007) The fotlowing order of the Court is passed by Safish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Deputy Director, Panchayat & Sociai Welfare, Jagdalpur. In place ofthe petitioner w'de order dated 16.3.2001 (Annexure A/1) one Shri K. S. Nag was appointed and no order regarding placement of the pstitioner has been passed. 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 1.5.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on that day. By virtue of the interim order the petifioner is continuing at the original place of posh'ng. 3. Be thst as it may, with the passags of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicabte forever. At this point of tims friere is no question to examine the validifr/ of the transfer order. However, the respondente are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders kseping in view the public intsrest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is wel! settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is fbr ths employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity wth the rutes and regutations. 5. !n wew of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge