Deepak Kumar Tandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5429 of 2016 • Deepak Kumar Tandan S/o Shri Shrivshankar Tandan, Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer At Baramkela, Distirt Raigarh R/o Village Thakurpali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture & Bio Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Directorate Of Agriculture, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattsigarh

3. Senior, Rural Agriculture, Extension Officer Baramkela, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Mateen Siddiqui & Ms. Ruchi Nagar,Advocate For Respondents/State Mr. D.R. Minj, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy Order On Board 21.10.2016

1. The present Petition has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Bio Techonology whereby service of the Petitioner has been transferred from Baramkela, District Raigarh to Usoor, District Bijapur.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of transfer is bad on account of the fact that neither any administrative exigency has been assigned nor there exists any. Similarly, the transfer order also needs interference on account of the personal inconvenience that will cause to the Petitioner on account of his wife being in the advance stage of pregnancy. It would not be proper at this stage for him to leave her alone

at the present place of posting nor is she in a condition to take her to the transferred place of posting.

3. Both the grounds assailed by the Petitioner are by now well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, as also this Court. All along it has been held that transfer of posting of employee is the prerogative of State Government and in case any inconvenience is being faced by the employee the same can be redressed only by making a representation in this regard to the appropriate authority.

4. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for disposal of the Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy of representation with the Respondent for redressal of his grievance.

5. Not opposed by the learned State Counsel.

6. Accordingly, the present Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

7. In case if such a representation is made by the Petitioner, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Petitioner the Respondents shall consider and decided the same as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE kishore