Dismissed

Ku. Roshni Tirkey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2022WA/214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal regarding the transfer of a Naib Tahsildar. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision that transfer orders cannot be interfered with unless vitiated by mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no good ground to interfere with the orders of transfer.

Ku. Roshni Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 214 of 2022

¶5

Ku. Roshni Tirkey D/o Isdor Tirkey, Aged About 32 Years Working As Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Shankargarh, District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Collector, Balrampur, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Thr Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Shankargarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Suresh Rai, Working As Naib Tahsildar, Rajpur And Additional Charge of Tahsil Office, Shankargarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

¶15

For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant , Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶20

02.05.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

¶22

heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶23

¶24

This appeal is presented against an order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2654 of 2022, disposing of the writ petition with the following observations:

¶25

“4. Given the said facts, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the impugned order Annexure P-2. However, if the petitioner has a grievance so far as the new place of posting is concerned, the petitioner would be free to approach the respondent No.2 ventilating her grievance and upon such representation being made, the respondent No.2 is expected to take a decision on its own merits at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶26

The matter relates to an order of transfer.

¶27

Mr. Khetrapal submits that the petitioner assailed the impugned transfer order dated 05.04.2022, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Tahsil Office, Shankargarh to Land Record Branch, Balrampur as well as the order dated 08.04.2022 by which the respondent No. 4 was transferred to the place of posting of the petitioner at Tahsil Office, Shankargarh. It is submitted that the transfer order is issued in violation of Clause 1.3 of the Circular dated 03.06.2015 and Clause 5.3 of the Circular dated 27.06.2019. Clause 1.3 relates to tenure in the place of posting and Clause 5.3 relates to obtaining approval of the Minister concerned before order of transfer is passed.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel submits that there is no statutory rule governing transfer.

¶30

There is no allegation of mala fides in the writ petition.

¶31

In the case of Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas , reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in the violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. It was also laid down that the guidelines relating to the transfer policy does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.

¶32

However, it was also observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if there is any representation with regard to transfer, the appropriate authority is obliged to consider the same, having regard to the exigencies of administration.

¶33

This is what the learned Single has ordered in this case.

¶34

In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders of transfer and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/-

¶36

(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant ) Chief Justice Judge

¶37

Hem

Ku. Roshni Tirkey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Roshni Tirkey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salim Sheikh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rabindra Niketan, Vs Devendra Kumar Janghel

M/S Satya Vidya Real Estate Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Satya Vidya Real Estate Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax