NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 548 of 2024
• Smt. Mohanmoti Pradhan W/o Prabhanshu Shekhar Aged About 34
Years At Present Posted And Working As Panchayat Sachiv And
Posted At Village Baitari, Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
4. Shrawan Kumar Bagh At Present Posted And Working As Panchayat
Sachiv And Posted At Village Bhukel, Block At Villave Bhukel, Block
Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Diwan, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chande l
ORDER ON BOARD
31 / 01 /202 4
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on
15.05.2020, firstly petitioner has been transferred from Gram
Panchayat, Bhaskarapali, Block Pithora to village Singhi, Block
Mahasamund and thereafter from village Singhi to Village Baitari,
Block Saraipali vide order dated 26.08.2021, which is the present
place of posting. Thereafter, suddenly petitioner has been
transferred from village Baitari to village Bhukel, Block Basna, as
such the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfer, therefore, it is
prayed by the counsel for petitioner that the impugned order dated
12.01.2024 may be set-aside on this ground only.
2 Learned State Counsel opposed the argument raised by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that as per clause
(7) of the transfer policy dated 12.08.2022, the petitioner ought to
have submit a representation before the Committee for cancellation
or alteration of the place of posting/transfer.
3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture submit
that this petition may be disposed or giving liberty to the petitioner to
make a detailed representation as proposed by learned State
Counsel before the respondent No.3 and in-turn, respondent No.3
may also be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance
with the relevant rules/law/circulars, at the earliest, within any specific
period as fixed by this Court. He further submits that petitioner has
not relieved yet, not anyone has joined in her place, therefore, till the
decision of above representation is taken, the effect and operation of
impugned order i.e. Annexure P/1 dated 12.01.2024 shall remain
stayed with regard to the petitioner.
4 On the basis of submission made by both the counsel for respective
parties, at this stage, without entering into the merits of the case, this
petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed
representation before respondent No.3 within ‘one weeks’ and on
submission of such representation the respondent No.3 /Committee/
appropriate authority is directed to consider and decide the same
within an outer limit of “15 days” from the submission of such
representation in accordance with the relevant rules, law, circulars
and instructions applicable to the case of petitioner. Till then the
effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.01.2024
(Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed, if already not implemented.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
ved