Punit Ram Pardhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4220 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 3

                                                                 NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPS No. 4635 of 2022

Punit Ram Pardhi, S/o Late Shri Dandiram Pardhi, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village- Budeni, Post- Beldarsivni, P.S. Kharaora, Tahsil-
Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                       ---- Petitioner
                               Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Upper Secretary, Department
      of Excise (Commercial Tax), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
      Police Station & Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-
      Raipur (C.G.)
2.    General Manager, Office of General Manager, Department of
      Excise C.G. State Bevarages Corporation Limited, Raipur,
      District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey & Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocates.

For State : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

05.07.2022

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for setting

aside the impugned transfer order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure

P/1) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner has

been transferred from Raipur to Dhamtari. He also seeks for

direction to the respondents authorities to give joining in his

previous place of posting i.e. District- Raipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is suffering from nervous system difficulties and also

annexed prescription of doctor. He would further submit that as

per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short

"the Act, 2016"), the Government should post person in the place

near to home. In support of his contention, he would refer the

order passed by this Court on 10.03.2022 in WPS No. 1548 of

2022 [Dharmraj Prasad (D. Raj) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

others].

3. He would also refer the policy dated 13 th August, 2010, which

has been made in pursuance of the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 1995 (for short "the Act, 1995") and would submit

that as per the policy, the petitioner should be posted near to his

residence.

4. It is not in dispute that the Parliament has repealed the Act, 1995

and thereafter the Act, 2016 has been formulated. From record,

it is clear that the petitioner has not submitted any policy, which

has been made in pursuance of the Act, 2016, therefore, the

policy dated 13th August, 2010 cannot be pressed into services.

5. From the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner

is posted in the present place of posting since last 20 years,

therefore, as per well settled legal position that no employee can

insist for a particular place of posting of his entire service period,

therefore, the instant petition is not liable to be admitted for

hearing.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others

Vs. Union of India & others1, has held at paragraph 53 as

under:-

1 Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 (Decided on 10.03.2022)

"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.

7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and the transfer policy as well as the law laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (Supra),

the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of with a

direction to the petitioner to make representation before the

competent authority with regard to his medical problems, who in

turn, will decide the same as per the law on this subject within a

period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun