Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sachiv ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3661 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                              NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Writ Petition (S) No.6748 of 2021

        Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sachiv Sangh, District Surguja, C.G., through
        the President Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Prayag Gupta, aged about
        43 years, Occupation Service, Posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat
        Salka, Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                              Versus

    1. State of C.G. through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural
        Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District
        Raipur (C.G.)

    2. The Collector, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.)

    3. The Chief Executive Officer, Ambikapur, Jila Panchayat Surguja,
        Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                               ---- Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2 / State: -

Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General, on advance copy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

13/12/2021

1. The petitioner Association has called in question the transfer of 237

Gram Panchayat Secretaries (Annexure P-1) working in the State of

Chhattisgarh branding the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to

the transfer policy.

2. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, Mr. Amrito Das, learned

Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents

No.1 and 2 on advance copy, would submit that the petitioner

Association has no locus to challenge the transfer of those 237

transferred Gram Panchayat Secretaries as they have not consented

for that and there is no authorisation for and on behalf of those

Panchayat Secretaries, therefore, the instant writ petition has to be

dismissed as not maintainable. He would rely upon the decision of the

Delhi High Court in the matter of PTI Employees Union v. Press Trust

of India Ltd.1 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Pradesh

Lipik Varg Shaskeeya Karmachari Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh and

others2 to buttress his submission, whereas, Mr. Rakesh Pandey,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Association, would rely

upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Akhil

Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Represented by its

Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Association v. Union of

India and others3 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association

and others v. Union of India and others4 in support of his writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

4. True it is that the transfer order of 237 Gram Panchayat Secretaries is

under challenge in this writ petition, but nowhere it is reflected in the

writ petition that those 237 Gram Panchayat Secretaries are aggrieved

against their order of transfer and they have not joined the transferred

place and they wish to question the same. It is question of their

transfer, it is purely and simply a service matter and if they are

aggrieved against the order of transfer, they are at liberty to question

the same in accordance with law.

5. This Court in Pradesh Lipik Varg Shaskeeya Karmachari Sangh

(supra) has held as under: -

1 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1216

3 1981 (1) SCC 246 4 2006 (8) SCC 399

"5. Prima facie perusal of the documents would show that the promotion of the respondent No.4 is subject of challenge by the Union and the aggrieved person who is affected by such promotion is not before this Court. It is not a class litigation and the promotion of an individual i.e. of respondent No.4 cannot be termed as common cause litigation and the respondent No.4 he may also be a member of the Union cannot be driven to the corner at the behest of the Union when the concerned affected individual is not before the Court. The judgment relied on by the petitioner is completely on the different subject issue and inference cannot be drawn from that."

6. The aforesaid principle squarely applies in the present case and in

that view of the matter, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel

for the petitioner namely, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh

(Railway) (supra) and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association

(supra), both, are on different issue and inapplicable to the facts of the

present case. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is

liable to be and is hereby dismissed, in limine, without notice to the

other side. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma