Disposed

Motiram Tekam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2016WPS/3469/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner, challenging his transfer via a writ petition, had failed to file a representation. Consequently, the Court did not exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer but directed the authority to examine the grievance if a representation is filed within three months before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of in limine; the transferring authority is directed to examine the petitioner's grievance if he files a representation within three months.

Motiram Tekam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3469 of 2016

¶5

Motiram Tekam S/o Vishnuram Tekam, Aged About 35 Years At Present Working As Panchayat Secretary, Village Panchayat, Sarekha ( Bodla), Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Kedar Singh, At Present Working As Secretary, Village Panchayat, Bamhani, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

Village Panchayat, Bamhani, Through: Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Bamhani, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Village Panchayat, Sarekha, Through: Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Sarekha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. G.A., on advance copy

¶15

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

08/08/2016

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges transfer order mainly on the ground of frequency and that earlier the petitioner was transferred on mutual basis but by impugned order, earlier arrangement has been

¶20

-2-

¶21

undone and he has been sent back to the same place of posting. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is apprehending that he may be victimized by the Panchas and Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat, Bamhani.

¶22

The transfer policy says that the person may ordinarily be allowed to continue at one place of one year. It is found that in the present case, earlier transfer order was issued on 20.07.2015 and now, the impugned order has been passed on 22.07.2016. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if it is to be reckoned from the date of joining, it may be less than one year, this may not be a ground for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court unless the transfer order is illegal, malafide and/or results in severe hardship so as to warrant indulgence by the writ Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in a given case may be called upon to provide relief.

¶23

One of the ground taken in this petition is that earlier the petitioner was transferred from Bamhani in view of apprehension raised by the petitioner that he may be victimized by the Panchas and Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat Bamhani. He has again been sent back to the same place and he is apprehending some kind of victimization. This particular ground is a matter essentially in the realm of administrative consideration and not judicial scrutiny. Whether in a given case, posting of an officer would be in administrative exigency or not, is a matter of consideration of the administrative authority.

¶24

However, an employee is entitled to be heard, if he represents against any order of transfer on ground available to him under the policy of transfer or any other ground of hardship.

¶25

It is found that the petitioner has filed this petition without filing any representation. Therefore, in these circumstances, in view of the above consideration, all that can be ordered is that in case, the petitioner prefers representation, the Transferring Authority/respondent No.2 shall

¶26

-3-

¶27

specifically examine the grievance of the petitioner, particularly the grievance relating to apprehension of victimization and decide the matter on its own exigency, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶28

6. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶29

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶30

Rekha

Motiram Tekam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motiram Tekam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivganga Matasyoudyog Sahkari Samiti Vs R. K. Singh

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Kumar Singh Vs Subrat Sahoo

Shivnarayan Sahu Vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Rinku Nagdaune Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manjeeta Vishwakarma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh