Dr. Smt. Anusuiya Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 118 of 2019 Dr. Smt. Anusuiya Agrawal W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years Posted As Professor And Head Of Department Govt. Mahaprabhu Vallabharya Post Graduate College Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director Chhattisgarh Government Higher Education Department Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/01/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has been transferred vide Annexure P/1 dated 05.10.2018 from the Govt. P.G. College, Mahasamund to the Govt. Naveen College, Pirda, District Mahasamund.

2. The primary grievance, which the petitioner has raised is that the petitioner has been promoted as a Professor w.e.f. 2006 onwards and now she has been sent at a college, where the post of Professor is not available and in the order of transfer also she has been transferred showing her as an Assistant Professor.

3. The State counsel however submits that it is a case where the transfer is made within the same District and that so far as the status of the petitioner is concerned, it could be a typographical error and he submits that there

-2would be no financial reduction, neither shall the State Government withdraw any of the benefits, which the petitioner is presently availing on the post of Professor, if she complies with the order.

4. Given the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the impugned order has been shown as an Assistant Professor, whereas Annexure P/2 is a document, which shows that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Professor w.ef. 2006 onwards.

5. Given the said facts, let the petitioner make a detailed representation in this regard to the respondent No.1, who in turn shall consider the same and try to redress the grievance of the petitioner suitably.

6. Till the representation is decided by the respondent, considering the fact that though the order was passed on 05.10.2018, till date according to the petitioner, she has not been relieved, this Court is of the opinion that respondents shall not further relieve the petitioner, till the representation is finally decided.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved