Punam Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

géy NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WPS No. 6613 of 2014 '

Punam Shrivastava, D/o late Naresh Chandra Shrivastava, aged about years, R/o Village Koma, Post-Kirvai, Thana & Tahsil-Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Vers us State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Depaltment of Panchayat Rural Development Mantralaya New Ralpur Distrlct-Raipur '

(C G) ~2.

The Clnef Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Ralpur Distrlct-Ralpur (C G ) 3.

The Chlef Executlve Officer, [Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur District - Ra1pu1 (C G) ---- Respondents For Petltionei Shri Bhgirgai "Jput Advocate For Respondent/State Shri S Mayo A11 Panel Lawyer For Respondent No 3 Shrl PK Bhadurr Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashanf Knmar Miehrn Order On Board 14/05/2015 1.

The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 27.1 1.2014 passed by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur transferring her from Gram Panchayat Girola, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur Gram Panchayat, Gordi, Janpad Panchayat, Simga.

2.

Placing reliance judgment this Court matter

9''} Omprakash Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others {2011

(5) MPHT (CG)}, learned counsel for petitioner would submit petitioner cannot be transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the judgment in the matter of Omprakash (Supra) has been rendered prior the amendment in Rule of the CG Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 (Henceforth 'the Rules, 1999'), however, since thereafter said provision has suffered amendment and the provision as occurs today is t ' as followszv "27. Appointment of Panchayat employee to and his Panchayat.--~Notwithstanding anything contained these rules, the-appointing authority application made by any employee of Panchayat Service of other Panchayat, may appoint such employee to a same or equivalent post in the Panchayat service on such terms conditions as may be mutually agreed upon between two Panchayats, subject following conditions, namely:-- (i) Such appointment shall not be made to post to be filled by promotion.

(ii) The person so appointed shall receive the junior most rank, for the purpose of seniority, in the cadre of the post to which he is appointed, as it stands on the date of such appointment;

Provided public interest Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zila Panchayat may transfer any employee from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat within district case of such transfer, seniority of the transferred employee shall not be affected:

Provided further that in the public interest the Commissioner cum Director, Panchayat may transfer any employee of Panchayat services, working with the Zila Panchayat, from one Zila Panchayat another

4% Zila Panchayat in the state and in case of such transfer, the seniority of the transferred employee shall not be affected."

In View amendment Rule, law laid down Omprakash (Supra) is no longer applicable in the facts of the present case, as after the amendment, the CEO, Zila Panchayat has authority to transfer a Panchayat employee from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat and the said order does not affect the seniority of the concerned employee.

The issue now remains to be considered is -- Whether on the date of issuance of the impugned order, the Zila Panchayat, Raipur could have passed the order for an area which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Baloda Bazar, revenue district?

It is informed by learned State counsel as on the date of the impugned order, the Zila Panchayat, Raipur was exercising jurisdiction over revenue districts of Raipur, Baloda Bazar and Gariyaband. separate Zila Panchayat for Baloda Bazar has been constituted aher issuance of the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if Baloda Bazar was coming within the area of Zila Panchayat, Raipur, the same being a different district and the concerned Rule only refers to the word 'district' and not area of Zila Panchayat, the order still remains without jurisdiction.

To appreciate the above submission made by Shri Rajput, it would be profitable refer the provisions contained Section of the CG General Clauses Act, 1957, which are reproduced hereunder:- "5.Gender and number.- In all Chhattisgarh Acts, unless a different intention appears, - (a) words importing the masculine gender shall be

4) taken to include females; and (b) words in the singular shall include the plural, and 'words plural shall include singular."

9.

Thus, word singular would include plural vice versa, therefore, word 'district'

occurring Rule would mean districts coming within the jurisdiction of a particular Zila Panchayat. Thus, if there are more than one revenue districts falling within particular Zila Panchayat, employees working therein can be transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat even if the two Janpad Panchayats are falling within the jurisdiction of two different revenue districts.

lO.In the matter of Satish 'Ramteke Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others {WP(S) No.2706/2013 '& other connected matters, decided 8th October, 2013 }, this Court has held thus:- "8. On a bare reading of the first proviso to Rule 27 of Rules, 1999, it is manifestly clear upon transfer from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat, the concerned employee does not lose his seniority, therefore, any argument contrary provisions of law cannot be accepted.

It may happen in a given case that because of availability of a senior person cadre at transferred place, transferred employee may be a disadvantageous position with respect to promotion to the next higher post or in a given case he is most likely to be promoted in his near future at his present place of posting and because transfer he may lose chance promotion, but to say that the said event which may or may not happen future effects his seniority praesenti is not sustainable.

11.For the foregoing, this writ petition has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Bqwe