High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3247/2016disposed off

Smt. Laxmi Adhikari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3247 of 2016 Smt. Laxmi Adhikari W/o Pranav Mandal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Laxmi Nagar, Near Bharat Gas Godown, Tikrapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State :

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/07/2016 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grievance that even though, the petitioner has been relieved from earlier place of posting and joined in the Office of Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, she has not been given posting, presumably, because of cancellation of NOC vide order dated 28.06.2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of transfer has not been changed till date, and therefore, unless transfer order itself is changed or the petitioner is transferred to some other place, the petitioner is entitled to a place of posting.

-23. It appears that the petitioner was transferred from Bemetara district to Raipur district, based on accommodation under Government policy for keeping the husband and wife together at a same place. Later on, it appears that upon disclosure of the fact that the petitioner's husband is a central Govt. employee, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to accommodation as per clause 4 of the Policy dated 02.03.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Raipur has proceeded to cancel the NOC vide order dated 28.06.2016.

4. Irrespective of all said and done, there is no fresh order of transfer till date on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, as long as the transfer order of the petitioner remains in force and not changed, the petitioner is entitled for place of posting.

5. With this observation, the petition stands disposed off with a direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner place of posting as per existing transfer order. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of passing fresh order of transfer.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen