Priti Bhoi vs Chhattisgarh State Cooperative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6246 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                           NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Writ Appeal No. 526 of 2022

Priti Bhoi, W/o Lt. Sanjay Bhoi, aged about 35 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar,
Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Presently residing at Sarona,
District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

1.    Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank, Indira Gandhi Vyavsaik
      Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, CG.

2.    District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Raipur Through CEO,
      Raipur, CG.

                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

13.10.2022

Heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner. Also heard Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned counsel,

appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.08.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 425 of 2022,

whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated

12.01.2022 was disposed of with liberty to make representation before

the respondent authorities.

3. The petitioner, who is working as a 'Peon', was transferred from

Branch Bhatagaon to the office of Co-operative Central Bank, Branch

COD Raipur by an order dated 04.12.2021.

4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court

by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No. 6970 of 2021 and on the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

may be allowed to submit a representation to respondent No. 2, the writ

petition was disposed of by an order dated 20.12.2021 providing that the

petitioner may submit representation within 10 days. It was also provided

that on such representation being filed, the respondents would decide the

the same within a period of three weeks therefrom.

5. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a

representation which was disposed of by the order dated 12.01.2022.

6. Mr. Tamaskar submits that in the representation submitted, plea

was taken that the petitioner has difficulties in finding residential

accommodation and in providing education to the child.

7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.01.2022, the writ petition

out of which the present appeal arises, came to be filed.

8. The writ petition was again disposed of on the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would like to make a

representation before the respondent authorities as the petitioner has

some grievance with some officers.

9. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the transferred

place of the petitioner is at a distance of 5 km from the earlier office at

Bhatagaon, and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, as follows:

"5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition (s) is disposed

of with liberty to make a representation before the

respondent authorities. The petitioner is directed to file a

representation before concerned respondent authorities

within a period of two weeks and on such representation

being filed, the respondent authorities shall consider and

decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

representation."

10. Mr. Tamaskar submits that the petitioner had made a complaint

against an officer before the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission and

the said officer is posted in the very same Branch to which the petitioner

was transferred.

11. Relying on the affidavit filed, Ms. Trivedi submits that the complaint

lodged by the petitioner before the Chhattisgarh State Women

Commission was dismissed by an order dated 28.09.2018 holding the

same to be false and without any basis. It is further submitted that the

said officer, being a Grade-I officer will always be posted in the head

office, whereas the petitioner is posted in a Branch office, and therefore,

the statement that the petitioner was transferred to the very same office

in which the person against whom she had made complaint was posted,

is a misleading statement. She submits that the petitioner is transferred

within the city of Raipur and that no complaint was made to the

authorities of the Bank by the petitioner against any officer.

12. Since the writ petition came to be disposed of on the submission of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to submit

a representation, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal and

accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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




Brijmohan