Disposed

Arun Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2024WPS/1492/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his transfer and requested a change of posting citing medical and family difficulties. The Court directed the authorities to decide his pending representation within three weeks and stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order until such decision.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on impugned transfer order; direction to decide representation within three weeks.

Arun Kumar Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 2

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1492 of 2024

¶5

Arun Kumar Sonkar S/o Kli Ram Sonkar Aged About 50 Years Deputy Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary General Administrative Department, Revenue And Deserter Management/ Urban Administration And Development Department / Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Accountant General Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Divisional Commissioner, Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Ku. Shyama, Deputy Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

07.03.2024

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been transferred from Balodabazar to Sukma vide order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P/1). He would further submit that petitioner's mother is suffering from cancer and she is taking medical treatment from Regional Cancer Unit, Raipur. He would further submit that the petitioner is also suffering from some medical ailment and he is taking medical treatment from Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. He would further submit that in pursuance of the transfer order, he has already made representations on 26.02.2024 (Annexure P/4) before the Collector and the Secretary to the department raising his grievance but the same has not been decided and would pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2024.

¶18

Page 2 of 2

¶19

It is well settled principle of law that the personal difficulties of a person can be looked into by the employer. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of India & others¹ , has held at paragraph 53 as under:-

¶20

“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 by constitutional values. Hence, while upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, they leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy of accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such 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.

¶21

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal difficulties raised by the petitioner in the representation as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (Supra) , it is directed that the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner, which is already pending, within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if it has not been decided.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) so far as relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed till representation of the petitioner is decided.

¶24

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶25

Arun

¶26

1 Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 (Decided on 10.03.2022)

Arun Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Sonkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devavrat Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B. S. Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priya Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yantram Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bihari Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh