AF^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A_TBILA^PUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 403 o£Z010 PETITIONER : Linus Minz. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofCUhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DSTDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Sameer Kujur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29th day of January, 2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the salary pending outstanding since September, 2008 and further, to quash the order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Training Superintendent at Industrial Training Institute (for short 'ITI'), Tapkara, District Jashpur, has been transferred to IT1, Dondilohara, District Durg. 2. According to leamed connsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially posted at ITI, Mahasamund as Training Superintendent. Vide order dated 7.4.2008, the petitioner was transferred to ITI, Tapkara, District Jashpur.. Thereafter, again vide order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) the petitioner was transferred to ITI Dondilohara, Disto-ict Durg. Shri Kujur submits that the last drawn pay certificate and service book of the petitioner was not sent to Joint Director, ITI, Regional Office, Bilaspur and as such, the petitioner is not getting his salary outstanding since September, 2008 which he is legally entitled to. It is further contended that the petitioner has now settled at Tapkara and is taking care of his old aged parerits. His son is also studying at Kunkuri. Even the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of tlie guidelines and policies formulated by the State Govemment. Thus, the impugned transfer order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) may be quashed. 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. ^^^ if'€ .^. g 'a ,a "'-^S!®®^ 7. As far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to transfer is concemed, the petitioner is not impugning the transfer order on any admissible grounds i.e. mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the order, or violation of statutory mles or regulations. Even otherwise, the transfer order seems to have been passed on adminisfrative grounds as alongwith the petitioner, 17 other persons were also ta-ansferred. There is no challenge to the impugned transfer order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) on any other permissiblealegal grounds as aforestated, warraating interference with the impugned transfer order. It is a trite law that transfer is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer order unless there is a malice, infrmgement of statutpry mles and regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the order. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds except that the petitioner has settled at Tapkara with his parents. In service, this cannot be the ground as the employee may be posted anywhere at the instance ofthe employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Thus, the impugned transfer warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another , State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koun' and others asd.Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others ChiefCommercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others , Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to payment of outstanding salary shall be looked into within a period offourweeks. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to look into the grievances of the petitioner and ensure that the petitioner is paid his ' 1974(4)SCC3 2(1991)Supp2SCC659 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270. 4(2007)8SCC150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 (2009) 8 SCC 337 v ^^'WfS^, ^$F'B.i.:S(^^ : ,/sc~s\ /y'^..\ ,;f h'-c'-ssae. 1 1 '-»t»SE^j ^. <.^J/ ~^i/jy ""a-tik:3''' 8. outstanding salary in accordance with law, on its own merits and perspective, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTM Judge Amit