Mrs. Sandhya Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7336 Chatt

                                      1



                                                                      NAFR

              HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Writ Petition (S) No. 8467 of 2022
•     Mrs. Sandhya Singh W/o Shri Hiramani Pratap Singh Aged About 38
      Years Presently working as Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health
      Center Virsawarkar Nagar Hirapur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
      R/o - House No. 63, Anand Bhoomi, Zora - Pirda Road, Police
      Station - Telibandha, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                             ------Petitioner

                                   VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the 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
                 (cause title is taken from Case Information System)

        For Petitioner        : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate
        For Respondents-State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Adv. General

          Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
                                      ORDER

06/12/2022

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order of transfer

dated 17.11.2022, whereby, petitioner who is holding the post of

Rural Medical Assistant at Primary Health Centre, Virsawarkar

Nagar, Hirapur, Dist. Raipur, is transferred to Primary Health

Centre, Singpur, Magarlod, Dist. Dhamtari.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that transfer of petitioner is

in the midst of academic session as the girl child of petitioner is

studying in Class-VIII in Delhi Public School which is an English

Medium school and the transferred place of posting is a remote

area where english medium schools are not available. He

contended that petitioner's daughter is about 14-15 years old needs

attention of her mother, therefore, impugned order of transfer be

interdicted. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Director of School

Education vs. O. Karuppa Thevan reported in 1994 SCC Suppl

(2) 666.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel

for petitioner and submits that petitioner is a Government servant

holding a transferable post. Transfer of petitioner is made on

administrative exigency, hence, it does not call for any interference.

However, she submits that if petitioner is aggrieved in any manner

with her transfer, she can very well file representation before the

Committee constituted by the State Government under Transfer

Policy dated 12.08.2022 to consider grievance of employees

against their transfer and if any representation is filed it will be

considered in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case,

submission of learned counsel for petitioner that daughter of

petitioner aged about 14-15 years is studying in 8 th Class in Delhi

Public School (English Medium) who needs attention and

supervision of mother and the petitioner is being transferred in the

midst of academic session as the academic session starts in the

month of April or latest by 15 th of June each year and the transfer

order is issued only on 17.11.2022, 4 to 7 months are already

lapsed as also considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of O. Karuppa Thevan (supra), this writ petition stands

dispose of at this stage, directing the petitioner to submit a

representation raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition

before the Committee constituted under the Transfer policy dated

12.08.2022, within a period of 12 days from today and if such a

representation is submitted, the concerned Committee is directed to

decide the same expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of 03

weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

6. For a period of 05 weeks or till decision of representation,

whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against

petitioner.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition is finally

disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

/P a w a n