ARH AT BILASPUR v. ESPQNbENTS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition stands disposed of with above direction
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Writ petition stands disposed of with above direction. S^l-.,^^a ^^ ^a^apv s»A%e \^- 2 3 4 5 6
Judgment
State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary. Pubtic Works bepQri-ment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawcm, AAantralaya. Raipur, Oistt. Raipur (C6) Additiona! Sacretary, StQte of Chhattisgarh, Public Works bepaptment, AAantrolaya, Mahanadi Bhcus'an, AAantrolaya, Raipur, bistt. Raipai- (C6) HarishankQr 'Sai, posted Assistant Engmeer in the office of Exeeytive Engtneer, Public Works Department (Bridge), Division AtTtbikapur', bistrict Ambikapur •-•< ^ WRIT PETITCON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF Tt-IE CONSmTUTEON OF INDIA t,, .'SS!-\ ft ^l^^«gi g
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P.(S)No.2995of2013 PETITIONER L. K. Bhoi. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Awadh Tripathy, counsel for petitioner. Ms. Raksha Awasthy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (27/11/2013) Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 12/09/2013, whereby he has been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D., Bagicha to Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Bridge Division Ambikapur. Return has been file^ by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of guidelines issued by the State Government and to accommodate the respondent No.3:
It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting bf an employee. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of 1974(4)8cc3 's BU.-i I. :;-,,k-)u-kL, lijlif; ^^^ ;;:.^^ lifs-'a, A'II:;~>, i 2-— Bihar & another^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6).
Considering the limited scope of interference in transfer matters and for the fact that this Court has granted interim order in favour of petitioner on 25/09/2013, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with direction that in the event petitioner submits fresh representation before the competent authority within a period af one month from today seeking redressal of his grievance concerning the impugned transfer order, competent authority shall consider and decide his representation by a speaking order, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of submission of representation.
Till the petitioner's representation is decide or for a period of three months from today, whichever is earlier, the interim order passed by this Court shall remain in operation.
Operative part
Writ petition stands disposed of with above direction. S^l-.,^^a ^^ ^a^apv s»A%e \^- 2 3 4 5 6
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.