Sachidanand Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1732 of 2015

1. Sachidanand Singh S/O Parmeshwar Singh Aged About 58 years R/O Namnakala, Ring Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Excise Building, Chhokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Assistant Excise Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. District Excise Officer, Surguja, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate.

For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 06/05/2015 1.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2.

The petitioner, who is working as Excise Constable and is presently posted in the office of the District Excise Officer, Sarguja, has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 31-3-2015 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh,

assigning him the duties for departmental operations of the liquor shops, in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), District Bilaspur.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is, in fact, an order of attachment, which is not permissible in view of the State Government's circular dated 4-6-2001 prohibiting all kinds of attachment of a Government servant from one office to another office.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the impugned order is neither a transfer order nor an order of attachment, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 5.

A reading of the impugned order would indicate that some liquor shops of Bilaspur district remained to be allotted even after completion of the settlement process for grant of licence for the Excise year 2015-16, therefore, it has become necessary for the Government to run the liquor shops departmentally. Since adequate staff/man power to run the liquor shops is not available in the department, the Excise Commissioner has issued the impugned order assigning duties to different level of Excise Officers and employees. The impugned order would indicate that the officers and employees of the rank of Assistant District Excise Officer, Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Constables, Peon & Driver have been effected by the impugned order. It appears, while making the

arrangement, the Excise Commissioner has created a kind of paraphernalia so that liquor shops can be effectively managed. 6.

Needless to say that running of liquor shops would generate revenue for the Government. Thus, even if the impugned order has the effect of change of station, the same having been done by the State Government purely on administrative exigency and for a valid and lawful reason. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

7.

As a sequel, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Nirala