Disposed

Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2022WPS/4966/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an interim application for transfer from District Korba to Janjgir Champa due to prolonged service at the current posting. The petition was disposed of while directing the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks for the authorities to decide within two months considering Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Interim application rejected; liberty granted to file representation; authorities to decide within two months.

Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 4966 of 2022

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat S/o Late Shri Ramkumar Bhagat Aged About 34 Years R/o - Collector Colony, Qua. No.-G/11, Kohodia, Korba , P.S. - City Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Upper Secretary, Department Of Excise (Commercial Tax), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And PostRakhi, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

Assistant Commissioner Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Excise Department, Korba Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey,, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board

¶10

(21-07-2022)

¶11

Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No 1 of 2022 which is an application for grant of interim relief.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved with the order dated 22-6-2022 (Annexue P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby he has been transferred from District Korba to District Janjgir Champa (CG).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner has been appointed as Constable in the Department of Excise , Kanker. The respondent No.1 transferred the petitioner from the office of from District Korba to District Janujgir Chmapa vide order dated 23-6-2022 (Annexure P/1.). He would further submit that seniority and promotion of the petitioner maintained district wise and next promotional post which the petitioner is entitled for ie., the post of Head Constable also is a promotional post which is filled up by the Constables working in the same district. Further contention of the petitioner is that if he is shifted from the present place of posting to a different district his

¶14

¶15

promotional venues would get adversely affected. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it would reflect that the petitioner has been posted for more than three years at the place of posting.

¶18

In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant interim relief. Accordingly, I.A. 1 of 2022 is rejected. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before concerned respondent authorities within a period of two weeks raising all his personal difficulties and grievances and on such representation being filed, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with policy of the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation, keeping in mind the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 1243 of 2022 (S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Unio of India and others) decided on 10-3-2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 53 which is extracted as under:

¶19

“53. In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected.

¶20

¶21

The appeals shall be disposed of in the above terms”.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant writ petition

¶23

(s) stands disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

( Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶26

Raju

Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat 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

Farindra Nath Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Municipal Corporation Bilsapur Vs Sanjeev Gupta and Anr.

Bhavesh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhlal Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur