1 2025:CGHC:12968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1860 of 2025 1 - Mithilesh Prasad S/o Badri Prasad Aged About 59 Years Working As Clerk Grade-I, Jhilmili Sub Area, R/o Jhilmili, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Head Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager Personal Jhilmili Sub Area District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 28/02/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.20 10:30:26 +0530 2 been relieved pursuant to the order dated 27/02/2025 by which he has been transferred from Baikunthpur to Raigarh. 2. Case of the petitioner, in the nutshell, is that the petitioner who is posted as Clerk Grade-I in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited at Pandavpara- Jhilmili Sub-regional office, Baikunthpur has been transferred to Raigarh from Baikunthpur on administrative exigency vide order impugned dated 27/02/2025. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 27/02/2025 (Annexure-P/1) is a frequent transfer order, as the petitioner had earlier been transferred vide order dated 28/09/2024 from Jhilmili Sub regional office to Pandavpara underground mine and within a short span of time he has again been transferred. He further submits that earlier transfer order dated 28/09/2024 was challenged in WPS No. 6826/2024, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22/10/2024. (ii) Referring to a transfer policy annexed at page No. 40 of the Writ Petition, he would submit that as per clause-7 (iv) of the policy, the employees, who is having less than three years of service, shall be given special consideration on transfer and posting. Even, as per Clause-9, the employees holding a sensitive post continues to be in the post, he/she would be transferred from that post on completion of three years as per OM No. CIL/CSA (PC)/Transfer/583 dated 17/03/2021 as amended and modified from time to time. The petitioner is aged about 59 years and only having less than of 18 months in service, therefore, the transfer 3 order is in violation of the said policy. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order of transfer which the petitioner is challenging has been issued due to administrative exigency. Further, clause-7(iv) and 9 of the policy annexed by the petitioner, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, as neither the petitioner was suffering any of the decease mentioned in Clause-7(iv), nor the petitioner is holding any sensitive post as mentioned in Clause-9 of the policy, as such, the order impugned is just and proper. He lastly submits that the order dated 02/03/2024, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Pandavpara Jhilmili, which the petitioner is taking a plea that the same is within the purview of frequent transfer, was already canceled on the representation of the petitioner. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is manifest that the order impugned has been passed due to administrative exigency. Neither the petitioner is holding any sensitive post nor he is having any kind of decease as mentioned in Clause-9 & 7 (iv) of the alleged policy, respectively, therefore, the benefit as has been extended in the order dated 30/08/2023 passed with regard to transfer policy for non- executives of CIL and its subsidiaries, cannot be granted. Further, the transfer order dated 02/03/2024, for which the petitioner is taking plea of 4 frequent transfer, was already cancelled on the basis of representation moved by petitioner himself. As such, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any ground that the order impugned has been passed with mala-fide intention or the same in violation of any statutory provisions. 7. 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. It is also well settled that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul/ Gowri