^'^S^ s 8??i3PI-i! ^'^'.:.^'^^^ p'r'.^'u?^ <y Itfc, i^.'i "•'•^: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition NO.^2 c;s"72005 PETITIONER ,—K'l?s^ Td RESPONDBNTS .r-^^J^\\^ £>^^l^s^ /" "\ -'^ 'a..;;.-l;il"; <""•'"''':' !;~ f^-%^>^" V^fSZ^ M.K. Pandey S/o. L.N. Pandey Aged about 54 years Occupation-S.D.O. Water Resources Survey, Sub-Division, Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Deptt. of Water Resources, Mantralaya D.K.S., Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer In chief Deptt. Water Resources, Sihava Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Executive Engineer Department of Water Resources Office of Water Resources Department. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Engineer Water Resource Survey Unit No. 9, Bilaspur (C.G.) '5. Dinesh Bhagoria S.D.0. Land Water Resource Sub-Divisicn, Bilaspur (C.G.) £ (2) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -s i- ;-78 \jT;c| ^wiri4, ynl'i-i'is, Rrtmyt WHM 'SSW aTi^'STOTfeira; n'ar?3Ii^ST**li<b (/!. P- MO • ST'fa'l' an^ST iwp (ijciljci.ei) s^aTia^-HRt) sii^?T 1T t Ku. &eepaii Pandey, coun Shrl Akhii Agrawal, Pane^ Heard on admission. The petitiofter namely /V^ Sub-Divisiona! Officer, Wat&ii (C.6) and has been locaily shi^ the office of Assistant Engi No.9, Biiaspur by impugned or validjty' of the aforesaid order The submission of leard aforesaia order of posting of transfer and the same has be^ to the policy of the State effected after 31.8.2005. Sh| been shift'id to another offU no'.5 who is being brought present sub-division of the pet After it would appear that by the ii .V certain local shiftings. Not on *l<lfri41'f liinVtffe^t '(luit^i't S|531^T3II^?T ie! for the petitioner; 1 Lawye" for the State, on advance copy. j.K. Pandey, who is presentiy working as the Resources Sur'/ey, Sub bivision Bilaspur Fted from the dforesaid establishment to ]i|ieer, Divisionai Land Water 5urvey Unit |jer dated 10.10.2005; has challenged the in this wr-it petition. ^d counsei for the petitioner is that the t^ie petitioner to the new office amounts to |n effected in the ban period as according ^overnment, the transfers are ,iot to be ^ further submits that the petitioner has (a merely for accommodating respondent |n another sub-diyision at Bilaspur to the Itioner. |e order dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-1), ir^pugned order, the (S'overnment has made ^, the petitioner but two other officers of K. XI-HC-78 *ii*i«i^*n^ 'd-CTi -<)iAiirt<i, y-alt-i'iits, RlriiN'iy'i V3-C- rao . jS'i-'o f SIT^ST'R^ (Iicrfg5RE) sn^sitpiR'ficp aaiT3II^CT(!TqH) <pi<i[«<il-ii!*inT^'fei^l•<RJW|'< ^arf^Tail^ST |t'he department have been lof ^stablishmens by the sald impugn< division of the petitioner has beei^ Iwhich has'been shown. to be madel not feel that the aforesaid acll strictly amount to a transfer as Therefore, the first point regard^ jally shifted and posted in other [d order. By this order only the sub- changed in the city of Bilaspur itself on the administrative grounds. I do lion of the State Government wouid las been submitted by the petitioner. ng transfer in ban period faiis and the arguments in this regard cdnnot b^ accepted. The law in relation to interl transfer is now weli settied. Thi erence by the Courts in the matter of s Apex Court while dealing with the 2004 AIR SCV/ 556^held thatlthe transfer which is an incidence of Service is not to be interfered wlth by the Courts unless it is shown to be cleariy arbitrary or vitiate. prescribed norms of principles by mala-fide or infraction of any governing the tronsfe.r. (Plsass see The Apex Court further hetd fnat unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is mdde Court cannot interfere with it. f\ A 1993_SC_24441. Who shoui| n violation of operative guidelines, the be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administratiye aijthority to decide. Unless the order of *1WriiaiTT^ <d-OT|'-qi«lrt<(,u>-cFl'(-|<ic», R|ri|'(4y-< V3-^- 1<SO- S'T-^^ 3IT^9T 'ra'P (^cii^y^) W^200 ail^STcBiR'iw ?iaiT3ii^?ra?qra» B^TSR'HRd 3tI^?T ^- <ni<ifn41l llinV^'fet^l •(Rl'K;!'; ^Slf^TSn^ST transfer is vitiated by mala fid< guidelines or ruies the Courts s^\ or is made in violation of operotiye any ouid not ordinarily interfere with it. In SCC 245, it was observed by th^ Supreme Court as follows: iSovernn^ent servant or empioyee of a public undertaking |ias any legal right to be posted foreyer at any one particular place or place of his choice Since tran^fer of a particufar empioyee aooointed to the class or categorv of transfef-able posts from one p|ace to another is not oniy an incident, but a cor!|dition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an oijtcome of mala-fide exercise or stated to be in ^iolation of statutory provisions prohibiting any su(:h transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normall'l' cannot interfere with such orders as a m.atter) of routine, as though they were the appellate aut[iorities substjtuting their own decision for thdt ^f the employee/management, as against such ord^" passed jn the interest of administrative exi(|)encies of the service concernsd. This position wq: highlighted by this Court in During the course of argtfments, learned counsel for the peti' could not point out and show tl^at the aforesaid local shifting was SP/FS/2005-20,000 <3T;q-qi<(lrt«,y-rft'M4|d, R|ril^y-< to-f- f^O- ^-L-t,^ *ll*lrtl(R'n^ .................................... ^200^ 3IT^9T iRq? (l^E|(jcf^) •Bi^?TwR-<i* ?rai3ii^?itp»ira; /: &ul s^iTW^ifttTan^r -^- 'bl<ifn<il'-l<tl<inl ^ffei^) <R('(-^|< ^3I^>T3IT^5T to accommodate respondent no.5\ She also could not point out o,s to how this shifting, is an out-come of mtilafide or tha same is in violation of any statutory ruies made by the Gov^rnment or the guideiines issued by the departments. Even otherwise a|so since the petitioner has been localiy shifted from one sub-division to ^inother in the city of Bilaspur only, I am not' inclined to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order dated 10.10.2005. he petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage without notice to the othe^r side. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.4p49/2005 stands disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000 g