Dismissed

R.n. Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2015WPS/3326/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging multiple transfers of a Forest Range Official within the Dhamtari division. The bench held that transfer is an administrative exigency and the employee has no vested right to object, though liberty to make a representation on grievances was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file a fresh representation to the State Government regarding grievances within 15 days.

R.n. Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

sm¢e Bemh

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶3

, H 334% WntPetItIon S of2014 No.

¶4

/ ,

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

R‘N.Pandey, aged 55 years, S/o Late Shri Mahaveer^PrasadPandey Range Officer at Birgudi Range Forest Division Dhamtari,^{P.S.—SihawaTahasii—} Nagri District^Dhamtari (CG)

¶7

RESPONDEN^TS

¶8

VERSUS 1 .^/

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through the^{PrincipalSecretary} Department of Forest,^Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur P.S.Rakhi District Raipur(C.G.) State ofVChhattisgarh Through the^{JointSecretary} Department of^{Forest,Mantralaya} Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur P.3‘Rakhi District Raipur(c.e.)

¶10

The Principal^{ChiefConservatorof} Forest Government^{ofChhattisgarh} Raipur District—^Raipur (CG)

¶11

./ 4. The Divisionai^{ForestRangeOfficer} Dhamtari District—^Dhamtari (C.G. ) T.R.Verma^Agedabout54 years 5‘ 1 S/o Shri R.D_^Verma Forest Range Officer,^SeetaNadi Uddanti T,R.Gariyaband

¶12

Dhamtari Division

¶13

District— Dhamtari (CG)

¶14

WRIT PETITION^{UNDERARTICLE226OFTHECONSTITUTIONOF} INDIA FOR ISSUANCE^{OFAPPROPRIATEWRITSOFMANDAMUS} AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE^{WRITSANDDIRECTIONS}

¶15

The Petitioner^{hereinabovestatesasunder} :~

¶16

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶17

(Hon.^{Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker)}

¶18

Writ Petition (S)^{No.3326of2014}

PETITIONER

R.N. Pandey

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh^andothers

¶24

petitioner.

¶25

S hri Majid Ali PL for^responden t Shri Pratee k harma^counselforr e

¶26

WRIT 'N DERARTICLE²²⁶ OF^TH E 'O‘NSITITUTION OF INDIA o^RDER L (97.01 .2015)

¶27

The petitio ner; an ieriierploye of Fostre Department presently working as: ferfic at Ragen Office Bi rgudi, Forest Division, Dhamtari. Till his promotion orde r dated 31.12.2013^was issued, the petitioner^waswoking r as Deputy Ranger with his posting at Research and Extension Division, Raipur. On^31.12.20 13 vide Annureex^P—2.he .^was promoted^to the post of Ranger and fresh posting was given to him at Belgahna^Range,Fore st Divisi on Mrwahi.a On^3.1.2014he gave his joiignn at ManNahi Forest^Divion si in the office of Divisional Forest Officer. On^24.1.24 01 vide Annexure P-5 an order was issued by^{theStateGovernmentamendingtheearlierorderdated}

¶28

¶29

¶30

31.12.2013 and thereby posting^the petitioner^to Forest Range Sitanadi (Core), Headquarters Sihawa, Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve from Forest^{RangeBeigahna,ForestDivisionMarwahi.} On 12.2.2014 vide^{AnnexureP-7the} petitioner gave^his joiningⁱⁿ the office of Deputy Director, Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Gariaband. On^{4.3.2014videAnnexure} P-8 another order was passed transferring the petitioner^from Sitanadi Range (Core), i _^{TigerReservetoRange} ace about 06^km. avvayfrom Sitanadi g^e Rese e. On 6.3.2014 ' 10 the petitioner g Dhamtari from wh‘e; e nt to Birgudi Range Office. On 14.7.2014 vide^Annexur e. y et^{anotherorderhasbeenpassed} transferring^the petition’e fro i rgudi to Dugli^{Range,Dhamtari} Forest Division^—a piggy 4535^{km.awayfromBirgudiand} it is this order^{whichisunderchallengeinthis} petition.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner^{submitsasunder:}

¶32

¶33

(i) that the petitioner^{hasbeenvictimizedbytransferring} him four times^{thattoowithin} a period of less than eight months;

¶34

that the said transfer order^hasbeen issued just^to

¶35

(ii) accommodate^{respondentNo.5who} is already^atornear Dhamtari^forlastsix years;

¶36

that the transfer order^hasbeen issued against the

¶37

(iii)

¶38

¶39

transfer policy of the State Government.

¶40

Replying to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that the transfer is an incidence of service and as the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been issued in the administrative exigency, it cannot be said to be at fault. He submits that the petitioner^{hasnorighttooptfora} particular place^of posting^as promoting _ petitioner^though h I rwahi and Belgahna yet he gave hi joining^{atForestDIVIS} before he could j o _ a , promotion^order modified and on 24.1.2014 h e osted at Forest Range Sitanadi : (Core), Headquarters-i‘Sihaw Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve. State counsel further su'mits^{thatbytheimpugnedorderdated} 14.7.2014 (Annexure P e petitioner^{hasbeenaskedtowork} at Dugli Forest Range^whichis just^{35km.awayfromhis} present place^of posting i.e. Birgudi and thus^{theorderimpugnedwillnot} make any difference^tothe petitioner^{orcauseanyinconvenience} to him because Dugli where the petitioner^hasbeen asked to work also falls^{withinthesameforestdivision} i.e. Dhamtari. He submits that by the order impugned the headquarters of the petitioner^{hasnotbeenchangedand} in these circumstances^the same cannot^{betermedastransferorder,} rather it is merely-a change of assignment^ofthe petitioner.

¶41

¶42

if“

¶43

Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that initially the promotion order of the petitioner^was modified before he could join^{atBelgahnaandthusitcannotbesaidthathehascarriedout} that order or that the order dated 24.1.2014 has caused any inconvenience^{tohim.Hesubmitsthatthe} petitioner^wasshifted to various places^{buthehasnotworkedthereat.} 5. Heard counsel^forthe parties^and perused^thedocuments on record.

¶44

U Documents^onreco petitioner^wasshift ed Raipur on 31.12.2013^after promotion to the higher post after his promotion order was modified on^24.1201 houg after^24.1.2014 till 14.7.2014 i.e. the date on^which th e e rumpugned has been passed, the petitioner^{hasbeentransferredthricebutononeoccasionhewas} asked to^{workatBirgudiForestRangeinsteadofSitanadiwhich} is just 6^{km.awayfromthereandonthesecondoccasionhewas} asked to^{workatDugliinsteadofBirgudiwhichhappenstobein} the same^{forestdivision.ThedistancebetweenDugliandBirgudi} appears^{tobeonly35km.} 7. The settled legal position^{withrespecttothetransferofa} government^{servantisthattransferisanincidenceofserviceand} it does^{notrequiretheconsentoftheemployee.Apublicservant}

¶45

¶46

has no vested right to seek transfer to a Iocation of his choice and he/she can be transferred on administrative exigencies and in public^{interest.ThesettiedIegal} provision^{furtherenvisagesthatit} is not obligatory on the part of the empioyer to even comply with the principles of natural justice before making an order of transfer and the government is fully empowered^totransfera government servant from one place to another.

¶47

Thus i u al and legal position, this smack of any ma/a, " matter no reason is Court to interfere with the^same. Petition is thus d e‘ o substance and it is accordingly dismissed. 9. Though the peti, ga been dismissed, keeping in view the frequent shifting^ofthe petitioner^fromone place^toanother, this Court deems it proper to give^him liberty to make a^fresh representation to the State Government detailing all his grievances^and if he does so^withina period^{offifteendaysfrom} today, the competent^authority is expected to decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a further period of three 'weeks from its receipt.

¶48

\‘\

¶49

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judge

¶50

Wm . ”47.4

R.n. Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.n. Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K. Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Urmila Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shekhar Kumar Guha and 36 Ors. Vs M.D.Ibp.Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Smt. Suman Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Vimla Bharadwaj Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.