PRITINKER DIWAKER,J. - (1.) Vide order dated 8.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner who is working as Supervisor in the Department of Woman and Child Development was transferred from the office of Integrated Child Development Project, Geedam Samloor, Distt. Dantewada to the office of Integrated Child Development Project, Mahasamund Sector-Jhalap, Distt. Mahasamund on administrative ground. As this order was not given effect to and the petitioner was not relieved from Dantewada, she filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.(s) No. 5067/14 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents and for relieving her. On 25.9.2014 the said writ petition was disposed of by this court directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting for the place where she has been transferred subject to compliance of any other administrative instructions issued by the State Government. Pursuant to direction of this Court, the representation of the petitioner has been decided and order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development, Dantewada holding that as the petitioner has been transferred from the scheduled area to a non-scheduled area and no reliever of the petitioner has joined, the petitioner cannot be relieved. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition and simultaneously, the petitioner has also prayed for implementation of the transfer order dated 8.7.2014.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (i) though the petitioner was transferred on 8.7.2014 on administrative ground but till date she has not been relieved. The question of reliever of the petitioner, in the present case, would not arise as till date the respondents have not posted anyone in place of the petitioner. (ii) even in case of posting of someone as reliever of the petitioner, if the said person does join, the petitioner cannot be punished for the same and once she has been transferred, she has to be relieved. (iii) that the petitioner is working at Integrated Child Development Project, Geedam and this project has been divided into six sectors and in all six sectors, supervisors are working. In addition to these six supervisors, one supervisor who was on long leave has also joined at Geedam and now including the petitioner there are as many as seven supervisors and if the petitioner is relieved, the work of the project would suffer in any manner. (iv) that even if out of six supervisors, one or two of them are transferred, the remaining supervisors can very well take care of the work of such transferred supervisors. (v) the stand of the State Government that as no reliever has been posted in place of the petitioner, she cannot be relieved, is tenable because the transfer policy dated 5.6.2014 (Annexure P/5) is merely a guideline or executive instruction which cannot be enforced. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as well have held that transfer policy is merely a guideline/executive instruction and the same is enforceable in the Court of law. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in the matters of State of UP and others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 and Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444. Further, till date the transfer order of the petitioner has neither been cancelled nor been modified and therefore, it has to be given effect to. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of Sreedam Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam and others, (1996) 10 SCC 567 it is argued that writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents for enforcement of the transfer order. (vi) that in the neighbouring district Sukuma, in the same department three supervisors namely Ku. Swamlata Singh, Smt. Uma Singh and Smt. Anjana Sahu have been relieved despite the fact that there were no relievers for them also. The petitioner cannot be victimized just because she was posted in the scheduled area and no one has been posted there in place of the petitioner. (vii) that if the stand of the State Government is allowed to sustain, then the petitioner will have to remain at her present place of posting forever and she would never be relieved for want of reliever. (viii) that fresh recruitment of supervisors has already been completed and only posting orders are required to be issued. If the Government is interested to relieve the petitioner, out of the fresh recruiters anyone can be posted in her place. (ix) that clause 2.6 of the transfer policy is applicable in the case of the petitioner because no reliever has been posted in her place. If clause 2.6 is given effect to, then under no circumstances the petitioner can be relieved despite being transferred from her present place of posting.
(3.) On the other hand, supporting the impugned order it has been argued by the State Counsel that normally the government employees are reluctant to work in the scheduled area as a result of which the work of scheduled area is being affected and considering this aspect of the case, clause 2.6 has been inserted in the transfer policy to ensure that in the scheduled area also, the government employee should work. The State Government has to maintain balance while posting the employees and therefore, the petitioner has been relieved yet.;