Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Kumar Dhoke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2022
Page 1 of 2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5543 of 2022
Mahendra Kumar Dhoke, S/o Shri Baburaoji Dhoke, Aged About 56
Years (Technical Assistant), R/o Makan No. 67 Simaran City,
Mathpurena, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food And Civil
Supplies Corporation Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing
Corporation Headquarters Atal Nagar New Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General
Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
4. The Personnel Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing
Corporation Headquarters Atal Nagar New Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer.
For Res. No. 2 & 4 : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
25.08.2022
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition against the
impugned transfer order dated 29.07.2022 (Annnexure P/2)
passed by respondent No. 4, by which the petitioner has been
transferred from Raipur to Baikunthpur. In pursuance of the
transfer order, the petitioner has already been relieved.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has some personal difficulties, is aged about 56 years
and suffering from medical ailments. He would further submit
that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation
before the concerned authorities i.e. respondent No. 2/
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation
raising his grievance for considering the case of the petitioner.
3. It is well settled legal position that no employee can insist for a
particular place of posting of his entire service period. It is also
well settled principle of law that the personal difficulties of an
employee can be looked into by the employer. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of
India & others1, has held at paragraph 53 as under:-
"53. In considering whether any modification of the
policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the
need for a proportional relationship between the
objects of the policy and the means which are
adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to
fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and
of balancing the values which underlie a decision
making process informed by constitutional values.
Hence, while upholding the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, they leave
it open to the respondents to revisit the policy of
accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the
disabled and compassionate grounds. Such
exercise has to be left within the domain of the
executive, ensuring in the process that
constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15
and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly
protected.
4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the personal difficulties raised by the petitioner as well
as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK
Nausad Rahaman (Supra), the petitioner is directed to make
representation before respondent No. 2 within three weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and respondent No. 2
shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance
with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of representation.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
1 Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 (Decided on 10.03.2022)
