Nijam Shah vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4664 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4664 Chatt
Judgement Date : 21 July, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court

Nijam Shah vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2022

                                                                                                 NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      WPS No. 4976 of 2022
    • Nijam Shah S/o Late Shri Jogiram Thakur Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
      Singraitola, Post - Chilhati , P.S. - Chilhati, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chowki, District -
      Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
                                                                                       ---- Petitioner
                                               Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Upper Secretary, Department Of Excise
      (Commercial Tax), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post -
      Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
   2. Assistant Excise Commissioner Office Of Assistant Excise Commissioner ,
      Rajnandgaon , Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattiagarh
                                                                                   ---- Respondents

------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey,, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board (21-07-2022)

1. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No 1 of 2022 which is an application for grant of interim relief.

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved with the order dated 24-6-2022 (Annexue P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby he has been transferred from District Rajnandgaon to District Raipur (CG).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner has been appointed as Constable in the Department of Excise, Rajnandgaon under the office of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 transferred the petitioner from the office of from District Rajnandgaon to District Raipur vide order dated 24-6-2022 (Annexure P/1.). He would further submit that seniority and promotion of the petitioner maintained district wise and next promotional post which the petitioner is entitled for ie., the post of Head Constable also is a promotional post which is filled up by the Constables working in the same district. Further contention of the petitioner is that if he is shifted from the present place of posting to a

different district his promotional venues would get adversely affected. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. From perusal of the record, it would reflect that the petitioner has been posted for more than three years at the place of posting.

6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant interim relief. Accordingly, I.A. 1 of 2022 is rejected. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation before concerned respondent authorities within a period of two weeks raising all his personal difficulties and grievances and on such representation being filed, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with policy of the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation, keeping in mind the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 1243 of 2022 (S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Unio of India and others) decided on 10-3-2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 53 which is extracted 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 fulfil 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.