Admon Minz, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1701 of 2021 Admon Minz, S/o Late Shri Abraham Minz, Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Senior Treasury Officer At District Treasury Office Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Police Station Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Police Station Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.

Collector, Balrampur, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.

4.

Santosh Kumar Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Account Officer Mukhyamantri Gram Sadak Vikas Yojna (Prakosht), C.G. Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikarn, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/03/2021 1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order Annexure P/1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Balrampur to Raipur and the private respondent has been transfered from Raipur to Balrampur.

2.

Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been working in an around the present place of posting for quite sometime and at the

present place itself the petitioner has been working for more than 2 years now.

3.

Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any mala fides or ill intention on the part of the respondents in the issuance of the impugned order. As regards the ground of the petitioner being victimized to accommodate the respondent No.4 this Court is of the opinion that if the respondent No.4 has approached the respondents authorities being aggrieved by the place of posting given to him vide transfer order dated 23.11.2020 and the respondents authorities accepting the representation of the petitioner and making suitable modification, the same on that ground alone cannot be brought within the ambit of a mala fide action.

4.

For the aforesaid two reasons, the petitioner has not made out a strong case for interference with the impugned order. However, the liberty of the petitioner shall remain open for approaching the authorities concerned in respect of the change in the place of posting to the petitioner for justifiable reason, if any, and on such representation being made, the authorities concerned are expected to decide the same at the earliest.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved