Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Teshwar Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2017

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WPS No. 2181 of 2017

   • Teshwar Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Rameshvarji Verma, Aged About 56
     Years R/o Village & Post Jepra, Tahsil Charama, Police Station Charama,
     District Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Education,
      Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station & Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District
      Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

   2. Director, Office Of Directorate, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalay, Indravati
      Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

   3. District Education Officer, Office Of D. E. O., North Bastar, Kanker, District
      Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 09/05/2017

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 08/12/2016 on the ground that after revocation of suspension, he has been posted at a place, different than the place wherefrom he was suspended.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon revocation of suspension, the petitioner is liable to be posted at the same place and this issue is no longer res integra and decided by this Court in number of cases including Bhopal Tande vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P.(S) No.2498 of 2015 decided on 10/08/2015). 2

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though place of posting of the petitioner, after revocation of suspension, is different but it is in the same division.

4. The distinction pointed out by the learned State counsel is not material. The principle laid down in the case of Bhopal Tande (supra) is that once suspension is revoked, the employee is liable to be posted at the same place where he was posted at the time of issuance of the order of suspension.

5. In view of above, at this stage, this petition is disposed off with a direction that the competent authority shall post the petitioner at the same place from where, he was suspended. Thereafter, it will always be open for the competent authority to transfer the petitioner in exigency of service.

Sd/-

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu