S.O. Nashine vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2299 Chatt

                                  1
                                                        WA No. 271 of 2021


                                                                 NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WA No. 271 of 2021

  [Arising out of order dated 02.9.2021 passed by the learned Single
                    Judge in WPS No.4616 of 2021]

    S.O. Nashine S/o Omprakash Nashine Aged About 60 Years
     Working As Homeopathy Medical Officer, Government
     Homeopathy Hospital, Balod, District- Balod (Chhattisgarh)

                                                       ---- Appellant

                              Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Medical
      Education (AYUSH), Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa
      Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur
      (Chhattisgarh)

   2. The Director, Ayurved, Yog And Natural Medical, Unani
      Siddha And Homeopathy (AYUSH) Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. The Collector, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

   4. The District     Ayurved    Officer,   Balod,   District   Balod,
      Chhattisgarh

   5. Dr. Kaleshwari Sonwani, Working As Homeopathy Medical
      Officer, Govt. Ayush Polytechnic, Dantewada, District
      Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

                                                   ---- Respondents

For Appellant :- Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy.A.G

Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ Hon'ble Smt Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board

By

WA No. 271 of 2021

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ

13/09/2021

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant,

aged about 60 years has been transferred from Balod which

is a scheduled area, to Dantewada which is a core

scheduled area. He would submit that learned Single Judge

has allowed the appellant to make representation which

shall be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of

45 days, but in the meanwhile, if transfer order is executed,

the representation shall be rendered infructuous. He would

submit that considering the age of the appellant, at least the

operation of the transfer order be stayed during pendency of

the representation.

3. Having considered the submission and also considering the

fact that appellant is at fag-end of his service carrier, it is

directed that until representation is decided in accordance

with law, there shall be status quo, as it exists today, in

respect of appellant's posting.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ appeal

stands disposed of.

                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-
         (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                    (Rajani Dubey)
            Acting Chief Justice                        Judge

Ayushi