Rajendra Rangari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4242 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 2



                                                                  NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Writ Petition (S) No. 4657 of 2022
    Rajendra Rangari son of late Shri Shivram Rangari, aged about
     56 years, posted as Excise Constable, Office of Deputy Excise
     Commissioner, Flying Squade, Bastar Division, resident of
     Maharari Ward Collectorate Road, in front of Water Tank,
     Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Petitioner
                                Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Commercial Tax
      (Excise) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa
      Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
   2. The Deputy Excise Commissioner, Flying Squade, Bastar
      Division, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.)
   3. The Collector, District Bastar (C.G.)
                                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board

06.07.2022

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already served in scheduled area i.e. Jagdalpur, Bastar for more than 10 years and by way of impugned order dated 24.6.2022 (Annexure P-1), the services of the petitioner has been transferred from core scheduled area to another core scheduled area i.e. from Jagdalpur, Bastar to Narayanpur, which is in violation of the policy of the State Government dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-2), which is prima facie illegal and unsustainable in law.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that vide impugned order dated 24.6.2022, transferring the petitioner from Jagdalpur to Narayanpur is in accordance with law, as the same is made on administrative exigency.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record.

4. It is not in dispute that Bastar is general Schedule area whereas the petitioner has been transferred from Bastar to Narayanpur, is core scheduled area and as per policy of the State Government dated 3.6.2015, the Government employee, who has already served in Scheduled area, he can be transferred in non- scheduled area. Whereas, the petitioner has been transferred from Scheduled area to core Scheduled Area i.e. from Bastar to Narayanpur, which is prima facie against the transfer policy of the State Government dated 03.06.2015.

5. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case and also considering the transfer policy with regard to posting of a government servant the impugned order so far as relates to the petitioner is concerned, is stayed. The petitioner is at liberty to make representation before the respondent No. 1 raising his grievance which intern will decide the representation as early as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till the representation shall decide, the transfer order of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make representation before the respondent No. 1 for redressal of his grievances and in turn the respondent No. 1/State Authority shall consider and decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of certified copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Amita