Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2014WPS/4014/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer order as illegal and arbitrary. Court held transfer is administrative and premature to interfere. Directed internal appeal to State Level Committee under transfer policy and stayed transfer order until committee decides.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order stayed for 4 weeks pending decision by State Level Committee on internal representation.

Dr. Y.k. Kindo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

AT OF^{CI-IHATTISGARH} UR Pm’w RE HE HIGH^C 1 ‘ ATTISGARH I BILASP'UR l²⁹¹ WRIT^{PETITION[SlN0.} 4M

¶2

ETITIONER
”W

¶3

Dr.^{Y.K.Kinda,sonofLl.} Kinda,^{agedabout50year's,} o.^{P.H.C.Raghunathpur,} Block^{Lundra,PoliceStation,} Civil^and Kaghuhathpur, v Revenuo^{DistrictgaygaiaW}} (C.G.),

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

'. 1. State^{ofChhattisgarhth¥ough} The^S ecretary,^{Health8sPublic} Welfare^{Department,Mahanadi} Bhawan,^{Mantralaya,Nevv‘}

¶6

”e
W

¶7

Raipur^(C.G.}, Under^{Secretary,Health81,} Public^{WelfareDepartment,}

¶8

Mahanadi^Bhawan, New^{Raipur(C.G.),}

¶9

Mantralaya,

¶10

suiya^Datt,Medical

¶11

1. Dr.^Anu Offrcer,^{Dr.BhimraoAmbedkar} Memorial^{Hospital,. Raipur} District^{Raipur(C.G.],}

¶12

WRIT^{PETITIONUNDERARTICLE226/OFTHE} OF^INDIA. CONSTITUTION

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH '. BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.4014 of 1014

PETlTlONER

RESPONDENTS

Dr. Y.K. Kindo

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh^&others

¶19

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

¶20

‘l‘Iwari, Present :- Shri T.K. counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Mazid Ali,^{PanelLawyerfortheState.}

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Passed^{onthis8thdayofAugust,2014)}

¶23

Heard learned counsel^forthe parties.

¶24

By this petition, the petitioner,^{Challengesthelegalityandvalidityof} the order dated^{30-06-2014,wherebyhehasbeentransferredfrom} CHC. Raghunathpur^{toCHC,Kotadol,onadministrativeexigency.}

¶25

. Learned counsel^forthe petitioner^{wouldsubmitthattheimpugne} d order is illegal, arbitrary^{andcontrarytothecurrenttransfer} policy deserves to be quashed.

¶26

. lt is a trite law that transfer/posting^{isanincidenceofservice.The} )

¶27

Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement^{ofstatutoryrulesandregulations.The} employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employerⁱⁿ public^{interestandadministrativeexigency.} Further, it is for the Government^to post^another person^{ifanyvacancyarises} on account of transfer/posting^{ofanemployee.} (See^E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil^{Naduandanother1,ShilpiBose} (IV/rs.)^andothers v. State of Bihar & anotherQ, State of MP. and another v. 8.8. ‘Kourv and others3, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. 8:

¶28

others", Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & others v. G. Ratnam & others5 and Airports

¶29

1974 (4) soc 3 ‘ L
(1991)Suppzscc 659,
(1995) 3 soc 27o , #%
>NmUJH~ (2007)escc 15o
(2007) s scc 212 m; n~i ”W y

¶30

Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & otherss).

¶31

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is also raising personal difficuities 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 05—062014 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 law, on its own merits. 5. For a period of 4 weeks from today, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 30-06—2014, with respect to the petitioner,^{shallremainstayed.}

¶32

Sd/i Prashant Kuniar Mishra‘ l Judge

¶33

6 (2009)^8SCC337

¶34

w.@m‘w

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Y.k. Kindo 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

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.

Smt.martha Lakra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.