Chattisgarh High Court
R. S. Chaurasia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 323 of 2021
R. S. Chaurasia S/o Shri R.N. Chaurasia aged about 62 Years Sub
Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division
Abhanpur, Abhanpur District Raipur CG
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur CG
2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Mantralay, Nirman
Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur CG
3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur Division, District
Raipur CG
4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.3,
Raipur CG
5. Tapan Kumar Chakravorthy, Assistant Engineer, Office of Sub
Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division
Abhanpur, District Raipur CG
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.
For respondent No. 5 : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Adv.
Reserved on 30-11-2021
Judgment delivered on 5-1-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
CAV JUDGMENT
2
Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 29.09.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5253 of 2021.
Challenge in the writ petition was to an order of transfer dated
15.09.2021, whereby, the appellant, who was posted as Sub Divisional
Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division-Abhanpur, District
Raipur, was tranferred on administrative ground as Assistant Engineer
to the office of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Naya Raipur.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
aged about 62 years and as he is going to retire on 30.06.2022, process
for grant of pension and retirement benefits have been initiated
(Annexure A-5), by the office of Executive Engineer, PWD Division-3,
Naya Raipur. It is pleaded that Clause 1.8 of the transfer policy issued
by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh
provides that the government servants, who have one year for their
retirement, would be posted in their home district or in the district as per
their choice, if permissible under the General Book Circular. The
respondent No.1 overlooking all these aspects, has transferred the
appellant vide impugned transfer order dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure
A-2) from Sub Division, PWD, Abhanpur to the office of the Chief
Engineer, PWD, Naya Raipur, as Assistant Engineer, with mala fide
intention, only to accommodate respondent No.5, who is an influential
person. The respondent No.5, who has been promoted, has also joined
in the new place of posting in absence of the appellant. He submits that
the learned Single Judge, without taking into consideration the issues
raised by the petitioner, had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant
solely on the ground of distance between the two places of posting
being short. Hence, he prays that the writ appeal be allowed and the
reliefs as prayed for, be granted.
3. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the
appellant has been transferred from Sub Division, PWD, Abhanpur to
the office of Executive Engineer, PWD, Naya Raipur, which is under the
same district and same division of Public Works Department and thus,
no district or division is being changed. Distance of those two places of
posting is only about 16 to 17 kms. and therefore, no service condition
or the transfer policy of the government is violated by the impugned
transfer order of the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has
remained posted for more than 4 years in the Sub Division, PWD,
Abhanpur and respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer and then he has been posted as Sub Divisional Officer, PWD,
Sub Division, Abhanpur, District Raipur and hence, it is wrong to say
that the impugned transfer order has been issued only to accommodate
respondent No.5. It is contended that the transfer order was made
purely on administrative ground. He further submits that in catena of
judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an employee does not
have any vested right to be posted at a particular place. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for
any interference in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also supports the
impugned order and submits that it does not call for any interference by
this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the materials available on record. We have also perused the original file
noting of the relevant files, which were called for by this Court.
6. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed as
follows:-
"Considering the short distance between the two places of
posting, this Court is of the firm opinion that no substantial
inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner and none of
the service conditions of the petitioner are going to get
adversely affected in any manner. Under the circumstances,
this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for
an interference with the same, the writ petition therefore is
dismissed."
7. It is settled proposition of law that writ courts are not appellate
forums to decide on transfer of officers on administrative grounds. The
wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the
Courts are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative
system when transfers are effected, because, an order of transfer is a
part of service conditions of an employee, which should not be interfered
with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the
Court finds that either the order is mala fide, arbitrary or that the
service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued
the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.
8. In the present case, it is admitted position that the appellant is
going to retire on 30.06.2022 and process of his pension and retirement
benefits has been initiated by the department. As the district of posting
of the appellant is not going to be changed by the impugned transfer
order and both the places are said to be of same division i.e. PWD, Sub
Division-3, Raipur, therefore, Clause 1.8 of the transfer policy of the
Government may not come in the way of present transfer of the
appellant. However, fact remains that only few months have remained
for his retirement.
9. Perusal of the transfer order of the appellant dated 15.09.2021
(Annexure A-2), promotion order of respondent No.5 dated 15.09.2021
(Annexure A-3) and Joining letter dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure A-6)
show that all these events happened on the same day. Respondent
No.5 assumed charge of Sub Divisional Officer, PWD, Abhanpur on the
same day in absence of the appellant and in absence of any order
relieving the appellant from the post.
10. A perusal of the files relating to transfer goes to show that a
request letter was sent to the Minister, Public Works Department, by a
political personality to post respondent No.5, who is his nephew, in the
post held by the appellant. It appears that the said request letter is
delivered in the office of the Chief Minister. Subsequently, the Chief
Minister initialed said request letter. Thereafter, the file was processed
and resultantly, the transfer order was issued. Thus, in fact situation of
present case, it cannot be said that the transfer of appellant was made
in public interest and rather, it appears that the same has been issued
only to accommodate respondent No. 5.
11. In view of above, the learned Single Judge, in our considered
opinion, was not correct in dismissing the writ petition without
considering the case projected by the appellant.
12. On due consideration, we set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge as well as the transfer order dated 15.09.2021.
13. Writ appeal is allowed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (NK Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Pathak/-
