Disposed

Lalan Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2014WPS/3930/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer of a forest employee alleging lack of administrative exigency. The Court held transfer is an incident of service and directed the petitioner to approach the Internal Committee under the transfer policy for relief, staying the impugned order during pendency.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order is stayed, and the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the State Level Committee within two weeks for a decision within four weeks.

Lalan Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

$MQ$^%mr@@

IN THE^{HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR} /2014 Writ^{Petition(S)N035 3‘9}

PETITIONER

o\§v\ i (f;
J
y

1)
RESPONDENTS

Lalan^Rai /r (wrongly^{mentionedLalan} order)^S/oLate Singh^inimpugned Ram Kisun R‘ai, aged about 61 Posted at Deputy^Ranger, years,

¶9

Balrampur^Ramanujganj X, of Chhattisgarh^through General Secretary,

¶10

Raipur (C.G.)' "Balrampur Collector,

¶11

Ramanujganj^(C.G.)(C.G.) Forest Officer, The Division Balrampur (C.G.)

¶12

WRIT^{PETITIONUNDERARTICLE226OFTHE} CONSTITUTION^OFINDIA

¶13

HIGH COURT OF^CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶14

W.P.(S) No.3930^of2014

PETITIONER

Lalan Rai

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh^&Others

¶20

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice^{PrashantKumarMishra}

¶21

Present :- Shri Arun Kumar^{Shukla,counselforthe} petitioner. Shri Shashank^{Thakur,Govt.AdvocatefortheState.}

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(Passed^{onthis6thdayofAugust,2014)}

¶24

¶25

With the consent^{oflearnedcounselappearingfortheparties,the} petition^{isheardfinally.}

¶26

By this petition, the petitioner, challenges the order dated 15—7-2014 by^{whichhehasbeentransferredfromRamanujganjto} Rajpur, on administrative^exigency.

¶27

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel would submit that without there being any administrative exigency^{theimpugnedorderhasbeen} passed.^The petitioner^{isgoingtoretirefromhisserviceon30-9-2015i.e.within} a period of 13 months on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no complaint and enquiry against the petitioner. The impugned order^{iscontrarytothetransfer} policy. Thus, the same deserves^tobe quashed.

¶30

It is a trite law^{thattransfer/posting} is an incidence of^service.The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice,^{infringementofstatutoryrulesandreguiations.The} employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employerⁱⁿ public^{interestandadministrativeexigency.Further,} it is for the Government^to post^another person if any vacancy^arises on account of^{transfer/postingofanemployee.} (See^E.P.Royappa VEState of^{TamilNaduandanother’,Shi/piBose(Mrs)andothers}

¶31

./«V ‘ 11974 (4) SCC³ ,

¶32

l l

¶33

¶34

V. State of Bihar & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. 8.8. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others" Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). 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 internai remedy by constituting a State Ievel committee of Senior Secretaries as mentioned in para 6 of the said poiicy,^thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner submits a representation within a period of 2 weeks from today, the committee shall consider and decide the same as early as possible preferably^withina period of 4 weeks thereafter, in accordance with law and on its own merits. During pendency of the representation of the petitioner, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15—7-2014 (Annexure ~ P/1), in respect of the petitioner, shall remain stayed.

¶35

Sd/. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶36

2(1991) Supp 2 scc 659 3(1995) ‘3 Soc 270 4(2007) 8 scc 150 5(2007) 8 scc 212 6(2009) 8 scc 337

¶37

. F;

Lalan Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Rai 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

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.

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

Uttam Kumar Ware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Govind Ram Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.