1 2025:CGHC:15604-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 224 of 2025 Mithilesh Prasad S/o Badri Prasad Aged About 59 Years Working As Clerk Grade - I, Jhilmili Sub Area, R/o Jhilmil, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Head OfÏce Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Manager Personal Jhilmili Sub Area District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.03 16:48:58 +0530 2 2. The present writ appeal is directed against an order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1860/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is posted as Clerk Grade-I in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited at Pandavpara- Jhilmili Sub-regional ofÏce, Baikunthpur has been transferred to Raigarh from Baikunthpur on administrative exigency vide order impugned dated 27.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has suffered a frequent transfer within a period of one year and as per the policy the employees having less than 3 years of service shall be given special consideration on transfer and posting and the appellant is going to retire within 18 months, therefore, he is entitled for sympathetically consideration. He further submits that there is no administrative exigency and the appellant has been subjected to frequent transfer, therefore, the element of arbitrariness and mala- fide is inherent in the impugned transfer order. He also submits that the appellant is discharging the duty of sensitive post and as per the clause 9 of the transfer policy dated 30.08.2023 "the employees holding a sensitive post continues to be in the post, he/she would be transferred from that post on completion of the 3 years as per OM No. CIL/C5A (PC)/Transfer/583 dated 17.03.2021 and as would be amended/modified from time to time". Therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that 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 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. 8. It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to 4 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. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal as also with writ petition and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Pending application (if any), stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu