Dismissed

Naresh Kumar Sankat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2023WPS/510/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition where a government employee challenged the rejection of a transfer appeal. The court found the petition meritless due to failure to implead the successful rival claimant and failure to file the underlying applicability notification, violating the principle of approaching court with clean hands.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Naresh Kumar Sankat Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 510 of 2020

¶3

Naresh Kumar Sankat S/o Shri Parmanand Sankat Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-01, Office Of Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

2. Joint Secretary Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3. Regional Transport Authority Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: : Shri C.Jayant K.Rao, Advoate. For Respondents: : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. G.A.

¶10

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board

¶11

03.10.2023

¶12

By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2-Joint Secretary, Transport Department, whereby, the representation submitted by him in compliance with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019, passed in WPS No.8903 of 2019, has been rejected, while seeking, inter alia , following reliefs.

¶13

“10.1.That, this Hob’ble Court may kindly be

¶14

pleased to set-aside order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) and 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner has been transferred to District Transport Office, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)

¶15

10.2.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the present place of posting i.e., Office of Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.).

¶16

10.3.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by Respondent No.2 vide order impugned dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) without considering the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/State while referring to the order impugned dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) submits that since the same was passed while observing, inter alia, that the reasons assigned by the petitioner is not sufficient and as the person (Ms. Purnima Kashyap), who has been transferred in his place vide transfer order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P-2), has already taken the charge and despite of knowing the said fact, the petition as framed and filed without impleading her as a party respondent deserves to be dismissed in limine.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition.

¶20

From perusal of the documents, it appears that the petitioner, who was

¶21

working as Assistant Grade-01 in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar, has been transferred to the District Transport Office, Kanker, District-Kanker vide order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) and in his place, someone else namely Ms. Purnima Kashyap, who was performing her duty as Assistant Grade-01, has been transferred. It appears further that since the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Lipik Vargiya Shashkiya Karmchari Sangh vide notification dated 06.04.2019 (Annexure P-3) and as he was transferred without following the said notification, a writ petition, being WP(S) No. 8903/2019, was earlier filed by him while questioning the propriety of the alleged transfer order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P-2), wherein vide order dated 24.10.2019, it was disposed of while observing at para 3 as under:-

¶22

“3.Perusal of the Annexure P-2 would show that the name of the petitioner appears as Secretary of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Lipik Vargiya Shashkiya Karmchari Sangh. Considering the facts of this case, it is directed that the petitioner shall make afresh representation in this regard within a period of 15 days from today before the concerned respondent and the said respondents in turn shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the transfer policy at the earliest preferably within a further period of 45 days. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the transfer of the petitioner dated 23.08.2019 shall not be given effect to.”

¶23

A bare perusal of the aforesaid direction, it appears that the petitioner was required to file his representation within a period of 15 days from the passing of the aforesaid order, but deliberately, it appears to be filed much beyond the said period, i.e. on 07.12.2019. Be that as it may, the representation so made by the petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order impugned dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) observing, inter alia,

¶24

that since the reasons assigned therein by the petitioner are insufficient and as the person, namely, Ms. Purnima Kashyap, who was transferred in his place vide alleged transfer order dated 23.08.2019, had already taken her charge and, in view of the said observation, the alleged transfer order (Annexure P-2) has not been interfered by the said authority while rejecting the petitioner’s said representation (Annexure P-5).

¶25

Despite knowing the said fact, as reflected from the order impugned, the petitioner has failed to implead her as a party respondent in the instant petition, though she was the necessary party for the adjudication of the instant petition as no effective order could be passed in her absence. That apart, even the complete copy of the said notification (Annexure P-3) has not been filed by him for the reasons best known to him. The petitioner has, thus, tried to get the alleged transfer order (Annexure P-2) cancelled somehow or the other, however, in order to get the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he should have approached the court with clean hands.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), so as to call for any interference in this petition.

¶27

The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶30

vivek

Naresh Kumar Sankat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Sankat 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

Dr. Sunanda Marawi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sharad Kumar Cholkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Narayan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh