Sanjay Kumar Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7185 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                        NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 634 of 2022

Sanjay Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Balram Prasad Shukla Aged About 53 Years
R/o Ekta Colony Near Khushi Kirana Shop, Khamtarai, Post Office Baima
Nagoi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Appellant
                                    Versus

1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary, Department of Health
      And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
      District Raipur (C.G.)
2.    Divisional Joint Director Health Services Regional Health And Family
      Welfare Training Centre Parishar, Seepat Road Bilaspur (C.G.)
3.    Chief Medical And Health Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

30.11.2022

Heard Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing

for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.11.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6967 of 2022 whereby the

writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner challenging his order of

transfer dated 30.09.2022 was dismissed.

3. The appellant / writ petitioner was appointed as Ophthalmic Assistant

(now Ophthalmic Assistant Officer) in Primary Health Centre, Kota, District

Bilaspur by an order dated 18.09.2022. However, there being no such post

at Kota, he was posted in Primary Health Centre, Kabhara, District Bilaspur.

The appellant / writ petitioner was transferred to Mobile Eye Unit, Bilaspur in

the year 2005 and thereafter, by an order dated 23.08.2019, he was

transferred to Primary Health Centre, Chapora. By an order of transfer

dated 30.09.2022, the appellant / writ petitioner was transferred from

Primary Health Centre, Chapora to Community Health Centre, Podi-Uproda,

District Korba.

4. Two primary grounds were taken to assail the transfer order dated

30.09.2022: firstly, it is contended that without posting any reliever in the

place of the appellant / writ petitioner, no transfer order could have been

effected as the place of posting of the appellant / writ petitioner happens to

be in a scheduled area; and secondly, that because of the mid-term transfer,

education of two daughters of the appellant / writ petitioner, aged about 17

years and 15 years, respectively, who are in Class XII and Class XI, is going

to be disturbed.

5. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that

at the time of making submission, the first ground as noted above was not

pressed and Mr. Kela has also, on a query of the Court, re-affirmed the

same before us.

6. So far as the second submission is concerned, the learned Single

Judge had observed that since the daughters of the appellant / writ

petitioner were studying at Bilaspur and not at the place of posting of the

appellant / writ petitioner at Chapora, the argument that the studies of the

daughters of the appellant / writ petitioner would be affected, is without any

merit.

7. It is pleaded in the writ petition that daughters of the appellant / writ

petitioner are studying in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bilaspur, which is not the

place of posting of the appellant / writ petitioner.

8. Mr. Tiwari has submitted that while in the District of Bilaspur, out of 42

sanctioned posts of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer, 31 are filled up, in the

District of Korba, only 14 posts have been filled up out of the sanctioned

strength of 38. Therefore, to mitigate the situation in the District of Korba,

the transfer of the appellant / writ petitioner was taken recourse to.

9. On due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the order

of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

10. At this juncture, Mr. Kela has submitted that on 17.08.2022, brother-in-

law of the appellant / writ petitioner had expired due to electrocution and as

such, the representation submitted by the appellant / writ petitioner may be

directed to be considered by the authorities.

11. Subject to the appellant / writ petitioner joining in the transferred place

of posting in terms of the present transfer order, the respondent authorities

may look into the matter and pass such order as may be considered

appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

12. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No

cost.

                          Sd/-                                           Sd/-
                  (Arup Kumar Goswami)                            (Sanjay Agrawal)
                       Chief Justice                                    Judge
Anu