CHITRANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE, W.P.(S) Nos. 1025, 1026, 1027, 737, 738, 763, 764, 767, 785, 797, 800, 802, 853, 870, 871, 895, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 906, 926, 927, 929, 930 & 941 of 2012 involve the same facts and grounds, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BY these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the respondent authorities by which the petitioners working on the post of Revenue Inspector were transferred from one district to other district.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the transfer policy is only guidelines, which has no binding and statutory effect. The guidelines were made by the State Government, so that the Collectors and other officials may not transfer the employees of the State arbitrarily and unreasonably. It is further submitted that in case of transfer, it is not necessary to assign reasons, as transfer is an incidence of service and it does not involve any punishment. It is for the State to post an employee at a place where it is administratively required. In support of his contention, learned State counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. S.L.Abbas1 and State of U.P. & Others v. Gobardhan Lal2.