Smt. Jyoti Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR 6 l Ll 1»- 12014 W. P. IS) NO.
/ PETITIONER Smt.
Jyoti Minj, wife Shri Dilip Kumar, aged about years, '
presently posted as'
District Programme Officer, Women Child Development, 'Hfub "m um District Balrampur -- Ramanujganj Whysm (C.G.)
VERSUS
/ RESPONDENTS :
1) Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Women and Development, Child Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Mahanadi Bhawan, (c.G.) / 2) The Collector, Sukma, Collectorate Office, Sukma; Dist. Sukmé (C.G.) 3) /Additional Collector, Sukma, Collectorate Office, Sukma (C.G.) / S.K.Choubey, presently posted Sukma, Dist.
District Programme Officer, Department Women Child Development, 'Sukma'
District Sukma (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
W) k:"
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S! No. 6142 of 2014 PETITIONER Smt. Jyoti Minj
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others I'LS''
hrito Das counsel for the petitioner.
h'ri"
r Shri Y.S. Thakur Dy. AG for respondents 1 to 3/State. WRITV'PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE '
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'ORDER '
l , (26.03.2015) With the consent'ofthe parties the matter is heard finally. 2.
Vide order dated772014 (Annexure P-2) petitioner who is working as District Programme Officer in the Woman. and Child Development Department was transferred from Sukma to Balrampur. By the same order respondent No.4 was transferred in place of the petitioner at Sukma from Raipur. As despite the transfer order the petitioner was not relieved, she filed WPS No. 4946/2014 before seeking direction authorities to immediately relieve her to the place of her transfer. The said petition was disposed of by Court on 19.9.2014 directing authorities consider petitioner from where she was transferred.
Pursuant to the said
'2order of this Court, by order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) the petitioner was relieved by Additional Coiiector on 5.11.2014 she gave her joining at Balrampur vide Annexure P-5. In the meantime, on 31.10.2014 order impugned (Annexure P-1) has been passed cancelling the relieving order of the petitioner dated 29.10.2014.
In the impugned order it has been mentioned by Collector that reliever of the petitioner had not joined atSU tion of relieving her from Sukma does not k s arise.
It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been transferred from Sukma, authorities are under obligation relieve her to join at Balrampur irrespective of the fact whether reliever'has joined .at the said place or not. By order dated 7.7.2014 respondent No.4 was transferred from Raipur to Sukma but he did not join there, petitioner cannot be victimized. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by virtue of relieving order dated 29.10.2014 and subsequent interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner she is still working at Balrampur.
support his submissions, counsel for petitioner placed reliance on decision of this in matter of Ms. Manisha Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No. 5914/2014.
4.
On other hand counsel for respondents/State supports the order impugned and submits that as the reliever of
w ,..$__ the petitioner had not joined at Sukma, she could not have been relieved and therefore the order'under challenge is in accordance with law.
5.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6.
matter of Sreedam Chandra Ghosh v.
Assam and othersirep'orted in (1996) 10 SCC 567 it has been held by the Apex Court as under:
"It is then contended that the transfer orders are to be enforced bythe Government as per the rules in vogue High Court cannot interfere with these orders.
We'are unable appreciate contention also. When the Government views noncompliance of: the transfer order a serious indiscipline on'rr'the" part erring officer when the person Complains of the non-compliance to the court, the court necessarily has to give effect order give directions for enforcement thereof. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition."
Further, considering the fact that pursuant to the direction issued in WPS No.4946/2014 petitioner was already relieved for Balrampur on 29.10.2014 she joined there on 5.11.2014, there was no occasion for the Collector to cancel the order of the petitioner. Another aspect of the matter is that in the relieving order of the petitioner dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure P-4)
it has been categorically mentioned that was approved by Collector thus once Collector has approved the of the petitioner, question of passing the impugned order cancelling the same does not arise. 7.
Even the State authorities have not denied the fact that the order of the petitioner was approved by the Collector.
Yet another aspect of-the case is that the petitioner has been transferred from one scheduled area to another scheduled area whereas per transfer policy, question of joining of the reliever will arise'only when government employee is transferred from the scheduled area to the non-scheduled area and here in this case it appears that the respondents have erred in law in ignoring thiszias'pect Of the matter. 8.
aforesaidview of :the matter, is of the opinion that the order impugned (Annexure P-1) cancelling the relieving of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
It is hereby quashed.
9.
Petition allowed.
"\M Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker w Judge