Dismissed

K.l.maheshwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2014WPS/3804/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a transfer order of a Health Supervisor was dismissed as devoid of merit since transfer is an administrative prerogative. However, liberty was granted to approach the Collector with a fresh representation and an stay was granted for 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to file representation before Respondent No. 3. Stay on the effect and operation of the impugned order for 15 days or four weeks, whichever is earlier.

K.l.maheshwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

•^

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH AT BILASPVR

¶3

WMT PETITION (S) No. %0^ 72014

¶4

PETITIONER: K.L. Maheshwari, S/o Late Kanglu Ram Maheshwari, aged about 49 years, presently '.^working on the post of Health Supervisor at nsV^'^^ Qommumty Heaith Centre, Bastar Sector, ^\^>;>Castar;'R/o VUlage Mother Teresa Ward, No.26, Mission Compound, Naya Mundapara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Police Chowki Bodhghat, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

<"'...rf' &'*' RESPONDENTS: 1.'

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Departanent of Health & Family Welfare, Science & Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2.' The Joint Director, Health Services, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. The Chief Medical SE Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶9

The Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre Bastar Sector, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 6. S.R. Mouiya, working on the post ofHealth Supervisor at Community Health Centre, Badekilepal, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶10

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORAm AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP(S) No.3804of2014

PETITIONER

K.L.Maheshwari

-Versus-

RESPONDENTS:

State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶19

Presenl:

¶20

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, counsel For the petitioner. Shri AV Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶21

Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.

¶22

ORALORDER

¶23

(1-8-2014)

¶24

The petitioner, who is working as Health Supervisor at Community Health Centre, Bastar Sector, Bastar is challenging the order dated 15.7.2014 passed^{bytherespondentauthoritieswherebythe} petitioner^hasbeen transFerred from Bastar Sector, Bastar to Community Health Centre, Badekilepal, District Bastar.

¶25

Leamed counsel For the petitioner would submit that From the initial day •of appointment the petitioner has been posted in schedule area and he has been serving in the schedule area For the last about28 years; the petitioner^is patient^{of NeuropathyandalsosuFferingFromhypertension&} blood sugar & his treatment is going on at Jagdalpur; the transFerred place is aboul: 80 km away From the present place oF posting. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

¶26

It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transFer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement oF statutory rules and regulations. The employee may be posted^{anywhereattheinstanceoFtheemployerin} public^interestand administrative exigency. Further, it is For the Government to post another person^{iFanyvacancyarisesonaccountoFtransfer/postingofanemployee.} (See^{E.P.Royappav.StateofTamilNaduand another,ShilpiBose} (Mrs.)^and others v. State ofBihar& anoCher^, State ofM.P. andanother v. S.S. Kourvand

¶27

1 1974(4)3cc3 2 (1991)3upp^2SC&.65.

¶28

.'^.•

¶29

vss*&

¶30

others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commerdal Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others and Airports Authority of India v. RajeevRatan PandeyS Others6).

¶31

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interFere with the impugned transfer order.

¶32

The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶33

However, liberty is granted to the pefcitioner to file a fresh representation beFore respondent No.3 within a period oF 15 days From today and, in turn, respondent No.3 shall consider and dea'de the same as early as possible, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided or for a period of 4 weeks, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the impugned order in respect oF the pefcitioner shatl remain stayed. ^

¶34

Barve

¶35

sd,//Prasiiant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶36

• 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 „ 4 (2007) 8 SCC 150 5 (2007) 8 SCC 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337

¶37

.»'"•<

K.l.maheshwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.l.maheshwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Smt.basmati Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sukhram Bhagat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Banderam Bairagi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Smt. Anita Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

S.m.a.yasini Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.