Disposed

Athnash Ekka v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2016WPS/3574/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a transfer to a scheduled area, the High Court of Chhattisgarh directed the transferring authority to consider the petitioner's history of long service in scheduled areas. The court disposed of the petition without hearing on merits, directing the petitioner to file a representation within 10 days and prohibiting coercive steps for five weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file representation within 10 days; transferring authority to decide within four weeks; no coercive steps for five weeks.

Athnash Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 3574 of 2016

¶4

Athnash Ekka S/o Late Marshel Ekka, Aged About 58 Years Upper Divisional Forest Officer, Gandai Forest Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisarh

¶8

Range Officer, Gandai, Forest Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

Shri H.B.Agrawal, senior counsel along with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

10/08/2016

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the transfer order mainly on the ground that eversince 1992 till 2014, the petitioner remained posted in scheduled area at different places and vide order dated 28/02/2014, he was transferred from Antagarh scheduled area to Khairagarh and now again, he is being transferred to scheduled area.

¶15

Considering the Government policy that where the officers have served in scheduled area, they are required to be considered for posting outside the scheduled area, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the transferring authority.

¶16

It is quite surprising that an officer, who has served in scheduled area from 1992 to 2014, was given posting outside the scheduled area only for two years and he is being again sent to scheduled area. This is a matter of serious consideration by the transferring authority.

¶17

It is found that the petitioner has not preferred representation and directly filed this petition. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed off with a direction that in case, the petitioner makes representation with 10 days from today, the same shall be decided by the transferring authority within a period of four weeks to explore possibility to post the petitioner to any non-scheduled area.

¶18

For a period of five weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶21

Deepti

Athnash Ekka v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athnash Ekka 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

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

Santosh Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh