Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Lata Painkra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 May, 2025

                                                   1




        Digitally signed by NADIM
        MOHLE
        Date: 2025.05.30 16:07:56
        +0530

                                                                 2025:CGHC:22467

                                                                               NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                        WPS No. 3948 of 2025


Smt. Lata Painkra W/o Late Vedram Painkra Aged About 47 Years Working As
Assistant Veterinary Filed Officer At Central Semen Museum Center, Jagdalpur
Block-Jagdalpur, District - Baster At Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh
                                                             ... Petitioner

                                                 versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - The Collector, Baster, District - Baster At Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh

3 - Dy. Director Veterinary Service, Jagdalpur, District - Baster At Jagdalpur
Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

29/05/2025

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking

the following relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by

the respondent No.-2.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue to issue any other writ /order/ direction as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the

impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by

respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner, who is

presently posted at Central Semen Museum Center , Jagdalpur, have

been attached to the Animal Dispensary, Jaitgiri, Block, Bakavand,

Bastar.

3. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order

of Attachment dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

respondent No.-2, whereby services of the petitioner has been

attached from present place of posting i.e. Central Semen Museum

Center , Jagdalpur to the Animal Dispensary, Jaitgiri, Block, Bakavand,

Bastar. He would further submit that respondent No.-2 attached

service of the petitioner out of Block- Jagdalpur, this action of the

respondent No.-2 is against policy/order of the State Government.

He would also submit that services of the similarly situated

petitioner/employee namely, Dayanath Kashyap (Head Master) was

attached vide order dated 14.03.2024 by the District Education

Officer, Bastar, and directed him to work at Middle School Bodli,

Lohandiguda. The petitioner (Dayanath Kashyap) preferred writ

petition (service) and the Co-Ordinate Bench while deciding the issue

of the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition treating the impugned

order of attachment as transfer order. thereafter, a Writ appeal was

preferred and the Hon'ble Division Bench while deciding the matter

(Dayanath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) (WA

No.413/2024, dated 10.07.2024) and other connected matters, set

aside the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench whereby the order

of attachment was interpreted as transfer order and respondent

authorities were directed to re-consider the claim of the writ

appellant; thus, he would pray that the instant writ petition may be

disposed of in the light of judgment rendered in Dayanath Kashyap

(supra).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned

order is not a routine administrative order but an attachment order

which effectively shifts the petitioner outside her original block, i.e.,

Jagdalpur.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, learned Deputy Government

Advocate submits that the petitioner was merely directed to perform

her duties at the Animal Dispensary, Jaitpur, Block Bakavand, due to

administrative exigencies and it does not amount to attachment or

transfer. It is further argued that such directions fall within the

domain of the competent authority, and no illegality has been

committed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was originally posted at Central Semen

Museum Center, Jagdalpur, within Block Jagdalpur. The impugned

order dated 05.05.2025 directs the petitioner to perform her duties at

Animal Dispensary, Jaitgiri, which falls under Block Bakavand, Bastar.

8. The Hon'ble Division Bench while dealing with similar issue in the

matter of Dayanath Kashyap (supra), held that such attachment

orders cannot be treated as transfer orders. The relevant paras 9, 10

& 11 are reproduced as under:-

"09.From the perusal of the impugned transfer orders, which have been challenged by the appellants in their respective writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, it transpires that they seem to be attachment orders and not the transfer orders and the learned Single Judge, misinterpreted the said fact and while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions, has directed that if the petitioners are not relieved, they will not be relieved till 4th June, 2024 thereafter, they will be deemed to have been relieved and will join transferred post immediately.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account that the impugned transfer orders seem to be attachment orders and not the transfer orders, the aforementioned impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions as well as the impugned transfer orders dated 14.03.2024 and 15.03.2024 issued by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are set aside qua the aforesaid appellants.

11. The respondent authorities are directed to re- consider the claim of the appellants in accordance with law preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

9. Vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025, the respondent

No.2/Collector has passed the following order:-

"विभागीय कार्य को सुचारू रूप से सम्पन्न करने की दृष्टि से

नीचे दर्शाये गए निम्नलिखित कर्मचारियों को उनके नाम के

सम्मुख स्तम्भ चार में दर्शाये रिक्त संस्था में आगामी आदेश तक

कार्य करने हेतु निर्देशित किया जाता है।"

10. The Chhattisgarh Government vide its circular

No.4025/2001/G.A.D./9, Raipur dated 04.06.2001 in clause 3.1 issued

following order:-