Disposed

Rajendra Singh Tilwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2022WPS/971/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the transfer of a State Government servant. The Court held that employees cannot claim a right to remain at a specific posting and personal grievances should be addressed by the employer. It directed the petitioner to submit a representation regarding personal difficulties within four weeks to be considered by the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to represent personal difficulties within four weeks; respondents to consider within four weeks; interim stay continued for two months.

Rajendra Singh Tilwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 971 of 2022

¶4

Rajendra Singh Tilwar, S/o. Shri K.P. Singh, about 60 year 8 month, working as Assistant Grade-I I.T.I. Saddu Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education & Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

Principal, Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I., Raipur)

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶12

10.08.2022

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 3.2.2022 passed by respondent No. 1, by which, the petitioner has again been transferred from I.T.I. Saddu, Raipur to ITI, Konta, District Sukma (C.G.) relying upon the order dated 7.4.2021 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1879/2021.

¶14

The brief facts, as reflected from the record that the petitioner joined on 05.02.1985 as Assistant Grade-III with the respondents. He was promoted in the year 2013 and posted at I.T.I. Raipur since December, 2013. He was transferred on 04.08.2017 from I.T.I. Raipur to I.T.I. Geedam, District South Bastar, Dantewada. The petitioner has challenged the said transfer order raising her personal difficulties mainly contending that the petitioner’s wife and sons are suffering for thalassaemia desease which required frequent blood transfusion. Considering this submission, this Court has directed the petitioner to make representation and till the representation is decided the transfer order was remained to be stayed. The respondent passed order on 01.03.2021 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The said

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court and this Court vide order dated 07.04.2021 has disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the respondents shall not proceed with the earlier transfer order dated 14.08.2017. Thereafter, the respondents have issued order on 03.02.2022 by which the petitioner has been transferred from I.T.I. Raipur to I.T.I. Konta. This Court consdering the submission has stayed the transfer order on 11.02.2022.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.6.2023 and he would submit that only 16 months is left for retirement and as per the policy of State Government, employees whose retirement is left less than a year, should not normally be transferred. He would further submit that since the petitioner has personal difficulties, therefore, he may be allowed to continue to present place of posting.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has never joined the place of posting since 2017 i.e. the first transfer order and he is posted at Raipur and thus, completed about 9 years at one station i.e. Raipur, therefore, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be remain posted at particular place forever.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is posted at Raipur since 2013 and subsequent transfer order has not been implemented, thus, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is posted at Raipur since last 9 years. The law has been well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that no employee can claim to be remain posted at particular place of posting as such, the transfer order dated 03.02.2022 does not warrant any interference by this Court. Since the petitioner has person difficulties and it is well settled position of law that the personal grievance of the employee should be looked into by the employer only. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other [Civil Appeal No. 1243/2022 decided on 10/03/2022] has observed in para 53, which reproduced as below:-

¶21

“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 fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

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

¶24

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, it is directed that the petitioner shall make representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondent No. 1 shall consider the same in accordance with law within outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, interim protection granted by this Court on 11.02.2022 shall continue for the period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

¶27

Sd-

¶28

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Amita

Rajendra Singh Tilwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh Tilwar 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

Alka Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ahibaran Lal Patel Vs Smt. Ranu Sahu

Mihir Pratap Samantaray Vs Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (Idbi Bank)