Dismissed¶¶27

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Sept 2024WPS/5813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed writ petition challenging intra-district transfer of a Block Medical Officer (Chhattisgarh health services) effected by order dated 14.08.2024; hardship pleas (age 57, spouse's mental ailment, core schedule area) rejected — no supporting medical document filed; distance approx. 20 km per State; transfer upheld as incident of service/administrative exigency, citing S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 and SK Nausad Rahaman (2022) 12 SCC 1; Sachin Singh Rajput J.; decision 19/09/2024; neutral citation 2024:CGHC:36683.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order, it was passed on account of administrative exigencies; the petitioner was transferred within the same district, and no document with regard to the ailment of his wife was filed. ¶¶20

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:36683

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 5813 of 2024

¶6

1 - Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe S/o Late Shri H.R. Dhruwe, Aged About 57 Years Working As Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Ambagarh Chowki, District-MohlaManpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - The Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, PL

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

19/09/2024

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner was working as Community Health Center Chouki District Mohla-Maanpur-Ambagarh Chouki to Officiating Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center District Mohla-MaanpurAmbagarh Chouki.

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 57 years old and his wife having mental ailment, he is being posted in the core schedule area therefore, he submits that the transfer order is bad in law.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the submission and submits that distance between the present place of posting and the transferred place is hardly 20 kilometers and no document with regard to ailment of the wife is filed. He submits that transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner cannot claim to be posted on the same post.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

From the perusal of the impugned order it appears the same is passed on account of administrative exigencies and the petitioner has been transferred in the same district and no document with regard to ailment of his wife is filed.

¶21

The Judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. v. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 observed that an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter of appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. In the case of SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under -

¶22

“24 First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

¶23

25 Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

subject to the overarching needs of the administration.”

¶26

Be that as it may, it appears that impugned order is passed on administrative exigency, I do not find any good ground in this writ petition./Sd/- Sd/-

¶27

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Pawan

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tikam Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Tikeshwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badakdau Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Singh Tomar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukvara Bai Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Narayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh