Disposed

Mrs. Anjali Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2022WPS/8407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the petition challenging a transfer of a Rural Medical Assistant. Instead of interference, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the relevant administrative Committee. The Committee was directed to decide the representation within three weeks. Interim stay was granted for five weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to the Committee; Committee to decide within 3 weeks; No coercive steps against petitioner for 5 weeks.

Mrs. Anjali Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 8407 of 2022

¶5

Mrs. Anjali Thakur W/o Shri Ajay Thakur Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health Center Ramnagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), R/o-A/38, Adarsh Nagar, Kushalpur, Raipur District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Chief Health And Medical Officer Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

¶13

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

02/12/2022

Heard.

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 17.11.2022 whereby the petitioner who is working as Rural Medical Assistant and posted at Primary Health Centre, Ramnagar, District- Raipur, has been transferred to Primary Health Centre, Jhalap, DistrictMahasamund.

¶18

-2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Rural Medical Assistant. She is the single mother having 6 years old daughter suffering from mental illness. Except petitioner, there is no other person to take care of her daughter who is taking continuous treatment from Psychologist at Raipur and, therefore, impugned order of transfer may be interdicted. He also pointed out that in place of petitioner, no other Rural Medial Assistant is posted by the impugned order of transfer. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted representation before respondent No.1 but the same has not been decided till date.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State would submit that petitioner is a Govt. servant holding transferable post, hence, has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transfered from one place to other. Impugned transfer order is issued by competent authority on administrative ground. Hence, it does not call for any interference. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner with her transfer, she can very well file representation before the Committee constituted by the State Govt. under Transfer Policy to consider grievance of employee against transfer. The petitioner has not submitted any representation before the concerned Committee till date. He further submits that according to Circular dated 16.01.2020, Rural Medical Assistant appointed by the State Govt. are to be posted in the

¶21

-3-

¶22

rural area itself.

¶23

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not filed this writ petition to be posted at Raipur or city area but the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner may be posted in any other nearer place to Raipur so that she can provide better treatment to her daughter.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with the writ petition.

¶25

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties as also the medical prescription placed on record of Anujya Thakur, female child of the petitioner aged 6 years who is suffering from mental illness, this petition at this stage is finally disposed off directing the petitioner to submit representation before the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy within a period of 12 days from today and in turn, the concerned Committee is directed to consider and decide representation to be submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, within an outer limit of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶26

For a period of 5 weeks or till decision on the representation whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to impugned transfer order.

¶27

-4-

¶28

8. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/----/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

Praveen

Mrs. Anjali Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Anjali Thakur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dron Lahre Vs Amrit Khalkho

Arun Kumar Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Singh Tandiya Vs State Election Commissioner

Durgesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Prasad Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh