Disposed

Santosh Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2016WPS/3564/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's representation regarding his transfer and decide on the issuance of an equivalent or higher rank post within four weeks, while staying coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

The matter was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation within four weeks and no coercive steps pending.

Santosh Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3564 of 2016

¶4

Santosh Pandey S/o B.P. Pandey, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Stenographer Grade Il, Posted At Office Of Collector, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Additional Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Collector, Korea, Distt. Korea, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Collector, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate, on advance copy

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Order on Board

10/08/2016

Heard on admission.

The transfer order is under challenge on the ground that petitioner has been transferred from the office of Collector, Korea to the office of Collector, Balrampur where no post of Stenographer Grade-II is sanctioned but higher post of stenographer Grade-I is sanctioned. The petitioner has also raised a ground that he has remained posted in the scheduled area for last 14 years and as per Government policy, he should be considered for transfer outside the scheduled area. The petitioner has also raised a ground that his daughter is studying in 10^th standard at Central School and there is no Central School at Balrampur where he has been transferred.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has immediately filed a representation through the office of Collector, Korea. The Collector, Korea has recommended for consideration of representation of the petitioner on the ground that upon his transfer, the office of Collector, Korea will be left with no stenographer, petitioner's daughter is studying in Class-10^th at Central School and he is posted in scheduled area for last 14 years.

¶20

The petitioner, upon his transfer, entitled to an appropriate post of equivalent rank or higher rank where he can join and his salary could be drawn. It is required to be considered that at the place, where he is transferred, there is vacant post of equivalent rank or higher rank is available, to which, the petitioner could join. The other ground that the Collector, Korea will be left with no stenographer, is not available to the petitioner. It is a matter of consideration of State Government on administrative side on the basis of letter dated 22/07/2016 of the Collector, Korea.

¶21

In view of the above, I am not inclined to keep the matter pending. It is found that the Collector, Korea has already sent a recommendation to the State Government, let it be considered and decided within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

For a period of four weeks, if no person has been posted in the place of petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed off.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Tiwari

Santosh Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Pandey 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

Uttam Rao Mathankar and Anr. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pradeep Sahu Vs a. K. Verma

Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Guptershwar Dhurve Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Athnash Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Managing Director, M/s Kitply Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh