BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. S 0L3 0f2005. / PETITIONERS :- 1. Central Excise Group ‘B’ Executive Offieers Association, Raipur through it’s President, Anand Kishore, S/o Late-Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 45 years, House No. 2, Steel Colony, Bhilai (C.G.), Sanjay Thul, S/o Shn' G.S. Thul, aged 40 years, MIG 774, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, General Secretary, Central Excise Group ‘B’ Executive Officers Association, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), MK. Shukla, S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Shukla, aged 55 years, Superintendent, Central Excise, Hqrs. Faipur (Chhattisgarh), Prakash K.. Chouhan, S/o Shri P.K. Chouhan, aged 51 years, Superintendent, 2 Central ExCise, 'Hqrs. Raifmr (Chhattisgarh), y .5. S.L. Tirki, S/o Shri Benzamin Tirki, aged 49 years, Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-Raigarh, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), / 6. R.S.P. Gupta, S/o Shri V.P. Gupta, aged 47 years, Superintendent, Central Excise, Hqrs. Raipur (Chhattisgarh), B.R.K. Iyer, S/o Shri MR. Balasubramaniam, aged 48 years, Superintendent, Central Excise, @ivisioh @ ’@ No.1, Bhilai, District (Chhattisgarh). Durg VERSUS RESPONDENTS :-/1. Union 0f India, Through Revenue Secret— aly, Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, Noah Block, New Delhi, /' 2. Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Nonh Block, New Delhi, 3. Chief commissioner, Customs and Excise, MP. and Chhattisgarh, 48, Administrative Area, Arera Hills, Bhopal. M.P., Z4. Central‘Administrative Tribunal, Carves Building, Civil-Lines, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). L ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF P P‘aipur’ Commissioner-aw To Nagpx befbr'e fhe Cami-ml Adminisfrd (henceforfh “fhe Tribunal”) wh O.A.No.673/2005 dismissed ’rhe a: Pefifioners No3 to 7 wer‘ grade of Superinfendanf cf Cus€ fransfer-red from Raipur‘ Commi: a-ffice order No.1/2005 dafed 3 exczp? under cerfain excep?ians‘ banned by Governmenf of India, 4 Vida circalar dated 19—2-2004, bu4 wiThoui‘ any compeknce have beé order Nal/ZQOE) dm‘ed 31-3-2095 “transferred pefi‘ricners No3 fa 7 from Ir Commissionem‘fe. The order was assaHed ‘Tiva Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur 3 vide order da?ed 13-9-2005 passed in 3pHca‘Hon. Hence, fhis wr‘if pefifion. a working in Raipur Commissionara’re in The oms and Ceniral Excise. Ail of Them were :sionerufe To Nagpur Commissionerai-e vide 1—3-2005 (supra). Pefitioners ciaim is that infer Cammissionemfe Transfer has been 'iinisi'ry of Finance‘ Depar’rmen‘i‘ of Revenue, " defying ihose insiruc'iions inese Transfers :n made. Chief Commissi%er;of Cusi'orns & <Hv~s i.i -i XI—HC~22 3am, mime,W m w S‘o I ti of m m mnn mm mw mmw WWEwW %31%W311%¥T Divisien Bench z Hon’bie $hri.V.K. Shrivesmva, .T r3: Hon‘ble Shri Dhirennra Mishm 6—12-2966 Shri H3. Agrawai, Sr. Adlacm‘e wifh $hri JK. 6upi‘a, counsel for lhe pe'iil‘inners. $hri Vinod Vinod Deshmukh, counsel far respondenfs No.1 to 3. Nana for respondem‘ No.4. Heard. Chief Commissioner of Cusfoms (£1 Cenl‘ral Excise, Ehopul/ vide office XI-HC-ZZ mwawm aswsmhr Cenfr-g! Excise Thereafter i5sued a circuiar dafzd 31-3-2003 and adamed inferim measure for infer Commissionera’re fransfer- againsf fhe policy issued by fhe Gover‘nmenf of India and fh Ereufier enforced fhe frunsfer erder. The vaiidiiy and proprim‘y cf The nrder‘ was assailzd before fhe Tribunal who decided +he dispufe againsf fhu pefi’rioner-s and dismissed fheir' original applica’rion. fine pei‘i‘iinner com-ended fhai‘ vide guideiines daied 19-2~2004 infer Commissiamera’re fransfer subject 1‘0 cerfain excepi‘ians were allowed for officials of §roug Learned senior counsei for B, C or D and the case of peTiTioners No.3 io' 7 doeS no? fall wiihin fhose excep"ions. On fhe other hand, learned counsel for ihe respondem‘s opposed 'rhe same and look shelier of Governmenf's order do‘l’ed 9~3—2004 (A nnexureeP/B}. Per-usal of AnnexureuP/g, seniorify involved, fransfer polio} Pefifioners foiled +0 show how fhe Second confem‘ion of The issued i'he fransfer order has no Transfer. The said confeni‘ion has 16-1—2003 (Annexure~P/9): empow Board’s instrucfions wifh regard manpower and maferial resources Commissioner. This dispufe has als clearly esfablishes ”rho? where no loss of ' as was earlier prevalenf was fo confinue. mpugned Transfer effecfs Their seniori‘iy. efifioners is The? Chief Commissioner who ‘jurisdic’rion fo order infer Commissionerai‘e no leg ’ro sTand as §overnmenfs order dated zrs fo moniforing fhe implemem‘afion of the f0 fransfers and equifable disfribufion of befween CommissionerafeSIZones To Chief geendisoissed ai' para 7 of 'l'he impugned