A. K. Patre vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

A. K. Patre vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2017

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                             1

                                                        NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   WPS No. 6049 of 2017

    A. K. Patre S/o Late Feru Ram Patre Aged About 46 Years
     R/o Qtr No. 1360 / 2 Railway Wireless Colony, Bilaspur
     Chhattisgarh.

                                               ---- Petitioner

                          Versus

  1. Union Of India Through General Manager , South East
     Central Railway , New G M Building Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
     495004

  2. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner , Railway
     Protection Force , South East Central Railway Bilaspur
     Chhattisgarh 495004 .

  3. Assistant Security Commissioner- 2 Railway Protection
     Force, South East Central Railway Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
     495004 .

                                            ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Shri A.V. Shridhar, Advocate. For Respondents Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 21/11/2017

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby, while reinstating him, he has been posted at a different place than the one where he was working on the date of suspension.

2. On the last date of hearing, learned panel counsel for the Railways had sought time to seek instructions in the matter, in view of the law laid down by this Court in WPS No. 217 of 2015 (Prakash Narayan Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh and others).

3. Today, Shri Ahluwalia submits that the legal position settled by this Court cannot be disputed, therefore, if this Court interferes in the matter, liberty may be reserved to the respondents to pass fresh order in respect of petitioner's posting, depending upon the administrative exigency.

4. Considering the issue brought before this Court and for the fact that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Prakash Narayan Tiwari (supra), the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall not give effect to the impugned order and allow the petitioner to work on the post, where he was working on the date when he was suspended, however, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order, if the administrative exigency so requires, in respect of petitioner's posting.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court