Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Tamrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 November, 2022
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7168 of 2022
• Sunil Kumar Tamrakar S/o Shri P.L. Tamrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Aamapara,
Rajim, P.S. Rajim Dist. Gariyabandh (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Mineral Resources ,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
492002
2. Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining Chhattisgarh Sonakhan Bhawan, Ring
Road No. 1, Village Purena, Post Ravigram Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chairman Committee Of Senior Secretaries, C.G. Government, General
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents ; Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07.11.2022
1. Challenge is to the impugned order dated 23.08.2022, whereby petitioner, who is working as Computer operator and Programme Assistant, in the office of District Office (Mining Department), Gharibandh is transferred to District Office (Mining Department), Raigarh on administrative grounds.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's wife is pregnant and his father is suffering from paralysis since 2020, and he is taking treatment continuously. As per the latest medical prescription for the month of August, 2022, petitioner's father is receiving fits continuously, and petitioner is the only person to take care of his wife and father. Therefore, impugned order of transfer be interdicted. He also submits that petitioner is now posted at Gariyaband, which is Schedule area and no other person is posted in place of petitioner, which is violation of clause 2.6 of the Transfer Policy, as in the policy it is specifically mentioned that no person shall be relieved or transferred from their place, without there being any substitute.
Wps 7168 of 2022 2
3. Learned counsel for the State opposing submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner is a Government servant, holding transferable post, hence, has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Impugned order of transfer is issued by competent authority, hence, it does not call for any interference. However, if petitioner is aggrieved in any manner with his transfer, he can very well file representation before the Committee constituted by the State Government under Transfer Policy to consider grievance of employees against their transfer and petitioner has already submitted his representation raising medical ground of his father and wife.
4. Heard Learned Counsel of the parties.
5. Taking into consideration submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, medical ground of his father and wife and also considering Clause 2.6 of the Transfer Policy, wherein it is specifically mentioned that no person shall be relieved or transferred from their place, without there being any substitute, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing petitioner to submit detailed representation before the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of directing petitioner to submit detailed representation before the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy within a period of twelve days from today, raising all his grievances as in writ petition. If such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the Committee shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of representation.
Wps 7168 of 2022 3
7. For a period of six weeks, or till decision of representation, whichever is earlier, status quo as it exists today with respect to posting of petitioner shall be maintained.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE padma