Chattisgarh High Court
Jagannath Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 35 Wps/1896/2019 ... on 18 March, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1562 OF 2019
Jagannath Singh S/o Late Rup Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Villag
Rampur, Post Tanakhar, Tahsil Podi Uproda, Police Station Katghora,
District - Korba Chhattisgarh.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18.03.2019
1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petitioner is the order of transfer dated 19.02.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Balod to Sukma.
2. The counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the petitioner in the past has been posted at Sukma and has discharged his duties as is evident from document dated 04.04.2013 when the petitioner has been transferred from Sukma to Korba. Further contention of the petitioner is that, his wife is suffering from paralysis and there is nobody else apart from the petitioner to take care of his wife and it would be difficult for the petitioner to take care of his wife at this juncture at Sukma. It would also be difficult for him to leave her back at the present place as there is nobody to attend her.
3. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of 10 days from today highlighting the personal inconvenience that the petitioner 2 would face, and the respondent No.2 in turn shall consider the contents of the representation and pass an appropriate order at the earliest preferably within a further period of 30 days. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent No.2, it is ordered that the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.02.2019 so far as the petitioner is concerned shall remain stayed.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder