Disposed

C. L. Diwedi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2019WPS/197/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the repatriation of a government employee from the Collector's office to his parent department. The court found no patent illegality and disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to make a representation for reconsideration of the administrative decision. No order was passed on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make representation to higher authorities for accommodation and change of posting; writ petition disposed of.

C. L. Diwedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 197 of 2019

¶5

C. L. Diwedi S/o Shri J. P. Diwedi, Aged About 56 Years, Presently Working On The Post Of Stenographer Grade-3, Collector Office Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Apada Prabandhan Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Collector, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶14

11/01/2019

¶15

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 21.12.2018 Annexure P-1. The issue revolves around the impugned order whereby the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj has repatriated the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Tribal Welfare Department from the office of the Collector.

¶16

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that though originally the petitioner belongs to Tribal Welfare Department but by virtue of the order dated 24.12.2011 passed by the State Govt. services of the petitioner were placed at the office of the Collector,

¶17

¶18

Balrampur and since then the petitioner has been working as a Stenographer Grade-III in the office of the Collector, Balrampur.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that the previous Collector on 28.05.2016 Annexure P-3 had recommended the case of the petitioner for absorption in the Revenue Department but no final decision has been taken and now vide impugned order Annexure P- 1 dated 21.12.2018 the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department i.e. Tribal Welfare Department. Contention of the petitioner is that the post of Stenographer Grade-III in the office of the Collector is still lying vacant and there is no administrative exigency for sending him back to the parent department and therefore, the same may be set aside/quashed.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee substantively of the Tribal Welfare Department. The Collector while passing the impugned order has shown that because of the administrative exigency they had got other stenographer-typists to the Collectorate by virtue of allocation of staffs between districts Surguja and Balrampur and now the petitioner is being sent back to the parent department i.e. Tribal Welfare Department.

¶21

This Court does not find any patent illegality on the said order passed by the Collector. Moreover, the petitioner has been accommodated in district Balrampur itself treating his parent department in the Tribal Welfare Department and posting him in district Balrampur.

¶22

Given the fact, the only relief which the petitioner can be given is that to make a representation to the higher authorities in the Department for both accommodating his services in the Revenue

¶23

¶24

Department as has been recommended in the past and also for change of posting in case he is not satisfied of working at the present place where he has been sent back by the Department. On an appropriate representation being filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall take a decision on the said representation at the earliest.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶28

Bhola

C. L. Diwedi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. L. Diwedi 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

Bihari Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Madhu Nawrange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pokhram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Sita Ram Dubolia Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raghunath Singh Netam and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mohan Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh