Sagun Singh Thakur v. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2285 of 2021 • Sagun Singh Thakur S/o Madho Singh Thakur, Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 52, New Adarsh Nagar, Street No. F/6, Zone-2, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through Deputy General Manager, Qtr.No. C/8, First Floor, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through, Executive Director, Durg Area, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

3. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through Executive Engineer, Sub Station Dn. Csptcl Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Additional Chief Engineer, O/o Dgm (Hr), Csptcl Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The R.A.O.- Csptcl Gudiyari Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For the Petitioner :

Mr. Jitendra Gupta, along with Ms.

Swati Verma, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Tribhuwan Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board /04/2021

1. Aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 17.03.2021 and the order of relieving dated 19.03.2021 the present writ petition has been filed. That vide the impugned transfer order the petitioner services have been transferred from Bhilai District Durg to Bilaspur. The petitioner is a Senior Level Officer under the respondents working on the post of Executive Engineer under the respondents.

2. The petitioner has been transferred to Bilaspur in the same capacity. That on a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been informed that the petitioner has been working at Bhilai (Durg) since 2017, this by itself would establish that the petitioner has put in about 4 years of service at the present place. Thus, the petitioner has completed the normal tenure of service at a particular stage.

3. Given the said facts this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order of transfer.

4. In the case if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of place of posting or wants a change in the place of posting, the petitioner would have the liberty for making a suitable representation to the respondents, who in turn shall consider the representation in accordance with the rules, regulations and policies governing the fields at the earliest in accordance with law preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. This writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge parul