Chattisgarh High Court
Mrs. Sangeeta Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 December, 2022
Page 1 of 2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 8466 of 2022
Mrs. Sangeeta Dewangan W/o Dr. Shashikant Dewangan Aged About
39 Years Presently Working As Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health
Center Bhatagaon, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Vatsalaya
Hospital, Ushakiran Parisar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundernagar, P.S.-
Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public
Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate Of Health Services Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Chief Health And Medical Officer, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen K. Shrivastava, P. L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
05/12/2022
1) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was
posted at Primary Health Center Bhatagaon, District- Raipur (C.G.)
and now he has been transferred to Primary Center Mahasamund,
District- Mahasamund (C.G.).
2) He would further submit that the petitioner's father-in-law recently
undergone by-pass surgery and is under continuous observation of
doctors at Raipur and her mother-in-law is also an old age lady
suffering from several illness. The petitioner will face difficulties at
Primary Center Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) as
there is no sufficient facilities for treatment of such illness.
3) It is well settled principle of law that the personal difficulties and
personal disablement should be considered by the government
while considering the transfer of its employee. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of
India & Other [Civil Appeal No. 1243/2022 decided on 10/03/2022]
has observed in para 53, which reproduced as below:-
"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 we uphold the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the
policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of
the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an
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. The appeals
shall be disposed of in the above terms"
4) In view of the above stated position and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case that the petitioner's father-in-law and
mother-in-law are suffering from various illness, I am giving liberty
to the petitioner to make representation before the concerned
authorities within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. In turn the respondents authorities are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter SK Naushad Rahaman & Others
(Supra) within six weeks from the date of filing of fresh
representation.
5) With the aforesaid observations & directions, this petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
amita
