Chattisgarh High Court
Murari Lal Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6882 of 2022
Murari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Parmal Sharma Aged About 62 Years Presently
working as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mungeli, District :
Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Under Secretary, Department of Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Mamta Patel Presently Posted as Assistant Engineer (PWD) High Court Technical
Section, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, GA.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. US Chandel, Advocate on Caveat.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
02/11/2022
Heard.
1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order of transfer dated
13.10.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner, who is holding post of
Executive Engineer and posted in office of Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, Mungeli Division, Mungeli, is transferred to office of Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department, Naya Raipur, (CG).
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is transfered only to
accommodate private respondent in office of Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, Mungeli whereas private respondent is not holding substantive post
of Executive Engineer. Referring to Clause 2.9 of Transfer Policy, 2022, he
contended that State Government under the Transfer Policy issued specific
guidelines that the employees holding the lower post cannot be posted as in-
charge by transferring an officer who is holding the substantive post in that
particular office. He further contended that petitioner is going to attain age of
superannuation within nine months, he may face some difficulties in settlement of
his retiral dues in time. Respondent No.3 ex-parte joined at present place of
posting, petitioner has yet not handed over charge of Executive Engineer,
Mungeli. In support of his contention, he places his reliance upon the judgment
passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Dalsoo Ram Darro vs State of
Chhattisgarh and Ors (2020 SCC Online Chh. 1830).
4. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is a Government servant holding
transferable post, hence, he has no vested right to remain posted at one place
and is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Impugned transfer order is
issued by Competent Authority on administrative ground, hence, it does no call for
any interference. Representation stated to be submitted is not before the
Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, 2022. However, if petitioner is
aggrieved in any manner with his/her transfer, she/he can very well file
representation before the Committee constituted by the State Government under
Transfer Policy to consider grievance of employee against transfer and if
petitioner submits representation before the Committee it will be considered in
accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes submission of counsel for
petitioner and submits that respondent No.3 alongwith application for taking
additional document on record, filed (Annexure R-3(1), showing that respondent
No.3 has taken charge from the petitioner on 14.10.2022, therefore respondent
No.3 has already executed the order of transfer.
6. Submission of counsel for respondent No.3 that petitioner handed over the charge
to respondent No.3 is vehemently opposed by counsel for petitioner on the ground
that petitioner at no point of time handed over the charge to respondent No.3. No
document to this effect with joint signature of petitioner is placed on record by
respondent No.3. hence, submission of counsel for respondent No.3 cannot be
accepted that petitioner himself handed over charge to respondent No.3.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, grounds raised in writ
petition, submission of counsel for petitioner that petitioner is going to attain age of
superannuation on 31.07.2023, including clause 2.9 of Transfer Policy, 2022 and
decision in case of Dalsoo Ram Darro (supra), I am of the view that no useful
purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending, awaiting response
of respondents, and ends of justice will be served if this writ petition is disposed of
permitting petitioner to submit representation against her/his transfer before the
Committee constituted under Transfer Policy to consider grievance of employees
against transfer.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting petitioner to submit
representation against his/her transfer before the Committee constituted under
Transfer Policy, within 1'2 days' from today, raising all ground as raised in this writ
petition. On making such representation, the Committee shall consider and decide
the same in accordance with law within a period of 'three weeks' from the date of
receipt of such representation.
10. For the period of 'six weeks' or till decision on representation, impugned transfer
order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-1), so far as it relates to petitioner, shall
remain stayed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
J/-
