Dismissed

Dr.j.c.meshram v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2014WPS/3918/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer order citing violation of policy and lack of application of mind. Court held transfer is service incidence and declined interference, but granted liberty to approach State Level Committee before expiry of 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to file fresh representation before State Level Committee within 15 days regarding personal difficulties.

Dr.j.c.meshram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

l i

G) $§H§§é $313M?

1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (0.9;) WP. (S)^No3)?\3 [2014

¶5

/
4
pETITIONER z Dr. J.c. Meshram, S/o. Late Shri
G.D. Meshram, aged about 63 years,
Posted as In-charge‘ Chief Medical
and Health Officer, Dist. Mungeli,
“3%: &.w . v‘,. ‘ ' _ C.G.
e .
e gig,“
g‘.$°_.n-‘°;‘$\‘&“:W\v§ VERSUS
59¢e ......
w ........
ow
/ .
RESPONDENT(S) :1. State of Chhattlsgarh,
Through the Secretary
Department of Health and
Family Welfare, Mahanadi
Bhawan Naya Raipur, C.G.

¶6

e/ r
2. Collector, Mungeh
Dist Mungeli, C.G.
3. Director/ Commissioner,
Health Services, Directorate
of Health Services, Dist— Raipur,
C.G.
//
4. Dr. Santo sh Kumar Baghel
currently posted as In—charge Civil
Surgeon, Dist Hospital— Mungeli

¶7

WRIT‘PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF‘ INDIA

¶8

¶9

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

WP(S) No.3918 of 2014

¶12

PETITIONER Dr. J.C. Meshram

¶13

—Versus—

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh 81; others

¶16

Present

¶17

Shri Vaibhav Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶18

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER (6—8—2014)

¶19

. The petitioner, who is working as In—Charge Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Mungeli is challenging the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Mungeli to District Korba.

¶20

. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed in Violation of clause 2(a) of the transfer policy 2014—15; the transfer order nowhere mentions the post against which the petitioner has been transferred and as such the impugned order has been passed without application of mind; the impugned order is also against the Government circular dated 4.8.2011 and the same has been passed to give benefit to respondent No.4. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

¶21

. 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 another], §hilpi^Bose(Mrs)and others v. State of (r/

¶22

f7”. . .. aw“ ‘

¶23

1974 (4) SCC 3

¶24

¶25

Bihar & anothel); State of MP. and another v. S.S. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam 85‘ Others5 and Airports Authority of India 1/. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Othersé).

¶26

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

¶27

. The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby di'srhissed.

¶28

. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is raising personal difficulties in carrying out transfer order and for the fact that those difficulties should be addressed before the employer rather than before this Court and the transfer policy dated 5—6—2014 itself provides for an internal remedy by constituting a State level Committee of Senior Secretaries as mentioned in para 6 of the said policy,^libertyis granted^tothe petitioner^{tofileafreshrepresentation} within a period of 15 days from today and, in turn, the committee shall consider and decide the same as early as possible, in V/

¶29

accordance‘vvith law and on its own merits ’I/t^/ /

¶30

Sdl— Prasham^{Kumar Mishra} Judge

¶31

(1991)^Supp2SCC659 (1995)^3soc27o §C\MWN(2007)^8soc150 (2007)^8soc212 (2009)^8scc337

Dr.j.c.meshram v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.j.c.meshram 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

Narendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh Swasthya Malaria Karmachari Sangh and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shyam Murat Kaushik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lalan Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Uttam Kumar Ware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Govind Ram Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.