Allowed¶33

Mahesh Ram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – transfer – challenge on medical/compassionate grounds

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2025WPS/185/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 185 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 05.03.2025 by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad. Transfer of Mahesh Ram Markam, District Women and Child Development Officer, Dhamtari, by order dated 02.01.2025, quashed because his daughter suffers from Hydrocephalus and is under treatment at Raipur hospitals; State permitted to transfer him in the nearby vicinity of Raipur. Writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the transfer order dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure-P/1), with liberty reserved to the State to transfer the petitioner in the nearby vicinity of Raipur in view of his daughter's ongoing treatment there for Hydrocephalus. ¶33

Mahesh Ram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10977

¶3

VISHAKHABEOHAR Digitallysigned byVISHAKHABEOHAR

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 185 of 2025

¶7

1 - Mahesh Ram Markam S/o Shri Kachru Ram Markam Aged About 56 Years Posted As District Women And Child Development Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, DistrictRaipur, C.G.

¶11

2 - The Director Directorate Of Women And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶12

3 - Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Women And Child Development, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶13

4 - Atul Dandekar Posted As District Women And Child Development Officer, Sukma, District Sukma, C.G.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶16

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For State :- Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

05.03.2025

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1 To call for the records of the case for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

¶23

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare the order dated 02.01.25 (Annexure-P/1) is illegal and bad so far as petitioner is concern.

¶24

10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 02.01.25 (Annexure-P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as District Women and Child Development Officer, Dhamtari.

¶25

10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct respondent department to consider the representation made by the petitioner and decide the same within a period of 15 days and inalternate to modify the impugned order and transfer the petitioner in nearby place from Raipur.

¶26

10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. ”

¶27

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 02.01.2025 on account of illness of his daughter, who is suffering from Hydrocephalus which is a very rare disease and is known as 'Water in the Brain' and which is a condition where there is too much cerebrospinal fluid is found in the brain and spinal chord since her childhood and she is also suffering from severe eye

¶28

¶29

disease. She needs emergency treatment anytime and she is being treated at various hospitals at Raipur namely Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, D.K.S. Super Speciality Hospital & Modern Healthcare Hospital and presence of the Petitioner at Raipur is utmost required and, therefore, it would be difficult for the Petitioner to leave the treatment of his seriously ill daughter. He further submits that vide an order dated 10.01.2025, on this ground alone, this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the transfer order of the petitioner dated 02.01.2025 and the respondents were directed to file their reply.

¶30

3. Upon query, learned State counsel has come up with its return in which some order-sheets are filed pertaining to 16.12.2024 to 01.01.2025 by which they are placing reliance that the case of the petitioner has been considered, however, it was not found worthy, as such, the transfer order was confirmed. It is further submitted that the State is relying upon the transfer policy pertaining to the year 2022 and the transfer order dated 02.01.2025 was passed in accordance with the said transfer policy. Therefore, no ground is made out for the petitioner for quashment of the transfer order, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no transfer policy in respect of the year 2024-25 and after a period of model code of conduct, his representation would be considered. However, in the meanwhile, the case has been listed and they could not pass any order on his representation.

¶31

¶32

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner was enquired whether he is willing to go on transfer to some other place, it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner that since the daughter of the petitioner is being treated at Raipur, therefore he has no objection in joining in the nearby places at Raipur. The petitioner is only pressing upon this petition on the ground that his daughter is being treated for a rare disease namely Hydrocephalus and it is being treated at Raipur only. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further considering the return by the State, the impugned transfer order in respect of the petitioner passed on 02.01.2025, in which the petitioner is at serial No.5, is hereby quashed . However, the State authorities are at liberty to transfer the petitioner in the nearby vicinity of Raipur, looking to the fact that the daughter of the petitioner is being treated for a rare disease namely Hydrocephalus.

¶33

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶36

Vishakha

Mahesh Ram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Ram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintamani Choudhari Vs Coal India Ltd.

Pankaj Raja Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nanaji Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Salma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sabita Aich Vs State of Chhattisgarh