High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5795/2017disposed off

Ku. Pinki Thanapati v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5795 of 2017 • Ku. Pinki Thanapati D/o Mohan Lal Thanapati, Aged About 28 Years Posted As Patwari, At Bar, P. H. No. 10, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Deputy Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Ms Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Respondents/State Shri R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 03/11/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017 by which he has been transferred from P.H.No.10 Tahsil Baramkela to Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been transferred to a distant place of near about 150 K.M. She is unmarried girl and nobody is there to look

after her.

3. Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.

4. Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 4 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

5. For a period of 10 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh