Chattisgarh High Court
K.P. Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 614 of 2022
K.P. Rathore S/o Late Shri R.S. Rathore Aged About 62 Years Presently
Posted As - Assistant Engineer (Wrongly Mentioned As Sub Engineer In
Order Of Hon'ble Single Bench) In The Office Of Executive Engineer,
Pwd Raigarh Subdivision, R/o House No. 75, Kalindi Kunj, Near Kabir
Chowk, Police Station - Jut Mill, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Raigarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Division
Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
6. Murari Singh Nayak Presently Posted As - Assistant Engineer,
Bridge Division Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
18.11.2022
Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 20.10.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6739 of 2022 whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the order of transfer dated
30.09.2022 was dismissed.
3. The appellant, while holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Public Works Department, Road & Building Division, Raigarh was
transferred as Assistant Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Raigarh. Respondent No.6
was transferred to the place of earlier posting of the appellant and the
appellant was transferred to the earlier place of posting of respondent
No.6. Thus, it was an inter-change transfer.
4. It is an admitted position that Assistant Engineer is in the same rank
as Sub-Divisional Officer.
5. The transfer has been affected within the same town.
6. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the transfer
has been affected within the same city, held that there was no merit in the
writ petition.
7. Mr. Narayan submits that the appellant has all along discharged
duties in the Road & Building Division and it is the first time that he has
been transferred to the Bridge Division. That apart, since the appellant is
due to retire on 30.05.2023, the transfer order is wholly unjustified. In
support of his contention that no transfer should take place within a
period of two years from the date of the retirement, he places reliance on
Clause 1.8 of the transfer policy as well as on a judgment of this Court
dated 05.01.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.323 of 2022.
8. Mr. Tiwari submits that though Divisions may be styled as Road &
Building Division and Bridge Division, there is a common seniority list of
all the Assistant Engineers and they may be posted in any Division and
that it may so happen that the appellant had worked in Road & Building
Division, but it does not mean that he cannot be transferred to Bridge
Division. He further submits that in the decision cited by Mr. Narayan, this
Court had held that in the event of transfer order taking place within the
same Division, Clause 1.8 of the transfer policy may not come in the way.
He further submits that in the said case, the order of transfer was
interfered with as respondent No.5 therein was transferred in the place of
the appellant on the basis of political intervention, which is not the case in
the instant case, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the
aforesaid judgment. Mr. Tiwari further submits that though the appellant is
transferred, the process of grant of retiral benefits will be immediately
started.
9. We have perused the judgment dated 05.01.2022 passed in Writ
Appeal No.323 of 2022 and find substance in the argument of Mr. Tiwari.
10. The scope of interference with an order of transfer is limited. In
absence of any allegation of malafide and violation of professed norms, in
the attending facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellant is
transferred within the very same city, notwithstanding the fact that he is
going to retire on 30.05.2023, we are of the opinion that no interference is
called for with the order of transfer dated 30.09.2022 as well as with the
order of the learned Single Judge.
11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
