Disposed

Smt.martha Lakra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2014WPS/4008/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench disposed of a constitution writ petition challenging the petitioner's illegal and arbitrary government transfer. Court held transfer is an incidence of service and denied interference due to existence of internal remedy. Stayed transfer order pending decision on representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to submit representation within 2 weeks; transfer order stayed pending its consideration.

Smt.martha Lakra Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

3*“Q1e Bench ®

¶3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' w.P. (S) No. /4Aw£ / 2014

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

Smt. Martha Lakra W/o Anil Kumar Beck, aged about 44 years, Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. Middle School, Kudukela, Block and Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur

(C.G.).

V
’
RESPONDENTS

VERSUS

:1/ State of Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Through, The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

/ 2.

¶12

Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Jashpur, District^— Jashpur (C.G.).

¶13

/’ 3. Block Education Officer, Kunkuri, District — Jashpur (c.G.)

¶14

K“
4.

¶15

Nitesh Kumar Singh, Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. Boys Middle School, Keradih, Police Station ~Narayanpur, Block Kunkuri, District^— Jashpur (C.G.).

¶16

¶17

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶18

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR' W.P. (S) No.4008 of 2014

¶19

PETITIONER

¶20

RESPONDENTS

¶21

Smt. Martha Lakra Versus

¶22

State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶23

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶24

Present :— Shri Manoj Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer forthe State.

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(Passed^{onthis8thdayofAugust,2014)}

¶27

Heard iearned counsei for the parties.

¶28

By this petition, the petitioner, challenges the legality and validity of the order dated» 28—07-2014, whereby he has been transferred from Govt. Middle School, Kudukela, District Jashpur to Govt. Middle School Darakharika.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present transfer order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rationalization policy^deservestobe quashed. 3

¶30

lt 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 employees 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 ER Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and anotherl, Shi/pi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar & anotherz, State of MP. and another v. 3.8. Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & others", Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway,

¶31

1974 (4) SCC 3 (1991)^Supp2SCC }? A (1995)^3scc270 kwNH (2007)^8scc150

¶32

Secunderabad & others v. G. Ratnam & others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & othersG). 4. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is also raising personal dimculties in carrying out transfer order and for the fact that those difficuities should be addressed before the employer rather than before this Court and the transfer policy dated 05-06— 2014 itself provides for an internal remedy by constituting a State level committee of senior secretaries as mentioned in para 6 of the current transfer policy, the writ 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 decide the representation as early as possible, preferably^withina period of 4 weeks thereafter, in accordance with iaw, on its own merits. 5. Till the petitioner's representation is decided, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 28—07-2014, with respect to the petitioner, shall remain stayed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Prashant^{KumarMishra‘} Judge

¶35

5 (2007)^8scc212 6 (2009)^8scc337

Smt.martha Lakra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.martha Lakra 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

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramratan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Dilip Kumar Mishra Vs Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.

Mohd.irfan And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Singh Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Y.k. Kindo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.