Roopchand Dewangan v. South Eastern Coalfield Limited and others) by which
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.29 11:12:21 +0530 2025:CGHC:18992-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 276 of 2025 Roopchand Dewangan S/o Late Shri Bajrang Lal Dewangan Aged About 34 Years Post Junior Technical Inspector, R/o Quarter No.- C/4, S.E.C.L. Officers Colony, Gudipara, Baki Mogra, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Korba Area, P.O.- Korba Colliery S.E.Cl., Korba Area, District - Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub Area Manager S.E.C.L. Saraipali Sub Area Officer, Korba Area, District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Man Power) Office Of The Sub Area Manager, Saraipali, Ocp Korba Area, P.O.- Bakshi (Pali), District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Head Officer Bilaspur S.E.C.L., S.E.C.L. Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Through - Director Technical (P. And P.), S.E.C.L.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate for Caveator 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel for Caveator. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7034 of 2024 (Roopchand Dewangan vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited and others) by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition
Decision
filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter referred as writ petitioner) filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.7034/2024. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the writ petitioner by the impugned order of transfer 18.10.2024 was transferred to Surakachha-Balgi Sub Area, Korba Area. The writ petitioner pleaded in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was appointed in SECL as a Junior Technical Inspector vide order dated 30-07-2016 and since then he is giving his service, without any complaint against him. He was selected as Junior Technical Inspector (P&S) Grade-C and posted at Surakachhar Balgi Sub Area on 14.03.2022. Vide the transfer order dated 20.01.2024, the writ 3 petitioner earlier was transferred from Surakachhar to Saraipali Sub Area and he subsequently joined his place of transferred. When the writ petitioner was posted at Saraipali, he made complaint against the irregular activities carried out in the work area and also addressed the irregularities to the higher authorities through various representations. In short span of time from his earlier transfer, he has been again transferred vide order dated 18.10.2024 and by which the petitioner has been transferred from Saraipali to Surakachhar-Balgi Sub Area, which amounts to frequent transfer. The said writ petition of the writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.03.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Bench Judge has been passed without appreciating the fact that the transfer of writ petitioner is frequent and is due to malafide intention of the authorities and the same is utter violation of transfer policy. The writ petitioner is posted in the department on the post of Junior Technical Inspector (T&S) Grade- C, which is evident from his appointment order and as per the memorandum dated 26.04.2002, the post of writ petitioner is sensitive non-executive post i.e. dealing with Assistance, dealing with sale specifically road sales. Thus as the post of writ petitioner is sensitive in nature, he cannot have been transferred within period of three years as per the transfer policy dated 30-08-2023 wherein at Clause 9 it has been provided that the persons posted 4 in sensitive post would be transferred on completion of three years, but the writ petitioner has been transfer in a period of 09 months. The writ petitioner submits that he has been earlier transferred vide order dated 20-01-2024 and he joined his services in his transferred place and in a short span of time i.e. within period of 09 months, he has again been transferred vide impugned order dated 18-10-2024, such a transfer being frequent, is illegal. The writ petitioner submits that earlier he was transferred on 20.01.2024, he joined on 22.10.2024 and on his joining, he made complaints against the irregularities committed at the work area on 15.08.2024 and the union also made complaint regarding irregularities on 20.08.2024, even the writ petitioner was assaulted due to his complaint and then thereafter on 18.10.2024, the impugned order of transfer was passed, such circumstances demonstrate the malafide intention on the part of authorities. The writ petitioner submits that the place, he is posted presently have three posts of Junior Technical Inspector and there is no one posted presently in his place and now on the transfer of writ petitioner, the post of junior Technical Inspector would be completely vacate, which is evident from the main power budget and the transfer order of one Jagannath Prasad dated 10.03.2025. The writ petitioner submits that he has been transferred to Surakachhat-Balgi Sub Area where at present there is no work for the writ petitioner because the area has been handed to the Railway, which is evident from the letter dated 02-05-2024, 11-05- 5 2024, 25-04-2024, 26-04-2024 and the production status. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner / appellant herein relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ms. X Versus Registrar General, High Court of MP reported in 2022 (14) SCC-187 whereby, it is held that the transfer policy has a force of law and the authorities are binded by it and thus in the present petition, the transfer policy bars transfer within period of three years in respect of sensitive post and the transfer is illegal and also the against the transfer policy. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner was malafidely transferred due to the complaints made by writ petitioner against the illegal activities at the place of work in short span of time and hence the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the transfer order of the writ petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that from perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it 6 is manifest that there are seven sub-areas in Korba area and in one of the sub-area, the writ petitioner has been transferred which is situated at a distance of 5 kilometers from his residence. Further, perusal of the documents, particularly, the assessment chart, it is apparent that in the transferred place, there is shortage of Technical manpower and for smooth functioning of the mining work and looking to the administrative exigency, the writ petitioner has been transferred. Further, it is a settled law that transfer is an incident of Service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet