Dismissed

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2014WPS/3861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging an order transferring a lab technician from Patan to Dhamdha. The court affirmed that transfer is an incident of service and quashed no order, granting liberty for the petitioner to file fresh representations.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh representation before Respondent No.3 within 15 days for consideration within four weeks.

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

r\ --'] r. .. -

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^.

¶3

i8«

¶4

W.P.(S)NO.'^^^/ /2014

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

^W8S^?4 Oa^--"'"

¶7

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh S/o Late Ramadhar Dhangarh, aged about 44 years, posted as lab technician at Community Health Centre, Patan, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,

¶11

District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

¶13

Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

The Collector, Durg District Durg (C.G.)

¶15

¶16

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶17

Smt. Renu Sonwani, posted as Lab Technician at Community Health Centre, Ahiwara, - Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.).

¶18

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_22_6_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶19

¶20

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶21

W.P.fS^ No.3861 of 2014

PETITIQNER

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & Others

¶27

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶28

Present:Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashak Thakur, Govt. Adv. for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4th day ofAugust, 2014)

¶29

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition^{isheardfinally.}

¶30

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15-7-2014 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Patan to Dhamdha, on administrative exigency.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orgler has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.5, who is a probationer. There is no complaint against the petitioner. Without there being any administrative exigency the petitioner has been transferred. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Stafe would oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶33

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 anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others

l1974(4)3cc3

•'<

lA^

?~-.<tf-^3»: 3 ~f
^Sff^i-^9-^. --;:-PS:-':"" "^'
s
'VSS" „,'

¶38

¶39

¶40

v. State of Bihar & another2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6).

¶41

In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶42

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is raising personal difficulties in carrying out transfer order, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.3 within a period of 15 days from today and, in turn, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same as early as posslble, preferably within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits. ,—

¶43

,— Sd/7Prashant Kumar Mishra •Judge

¶44

2(1991)Supp2SCC659 3(1995)33cc270 4(2007) 8 SCC 150 5(2007)83cc212 6(2009) 8 SCC 337 -->> •'t -

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Smt. Nirmala Rawate Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sarita Tiwari Vs State of C.G. and Ors.