(Order of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for some time.
2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal declining to interfere with the relieving order passed by the third respondent transferring the writ petitioner from Chennai to Kolkatta.
3. The order under challenge being one of transfer, which is an incident of service, we are not inclined to interfere with the same, especially when no mala fide intention could be attributed on the part of the employer for passing the the order of transfer. Moreover, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earlier and after perusing the materials available on record, when this court was inclined only to grant some time to the petitioner to join in the transferred place, it was represented on the side of the petitioner that the petitioner intends to engage a different counsel and on that score, he sought for an adjournment. Therefore, it appears that by such attitude, he attempts to get a better order.
4. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the petition. However, we extend a period of two months to the appellant to join in the transferred place accordingly, he is directed to report in the transferred place on or before 1st December 2017. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(H.G.R.,J.)(T.K.R.,J.) 3.10.2017.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
Note : Issue order copy on 13.10.2017 To: