Dr. Riddhi Shankar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6059 of 2016 • Dr. Riddhi Shankar Patel S/o Shri Taleshwar Prasad Patel, Aged About 32 Years Posted As Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Posted At Veterinary Hospital Bhairamgarh, Distirct Bijapur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Additional Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Dr. P.N. Gupta, Posted As Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Posted At Somani, Distirct Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Distirct Bijapur Chhattisgarh

5. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Deprtment Distirct Bijapur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For State :

Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. Advocate General ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 04/11/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

The petitioner has filed this petition on the grievance that though the transfer order has been issued on 25.07.2016, he is not being relieved. 2.

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is posted at a sensitive place in core scheduled area and if the reliever of the petitioner has not come, relieving of the petitioner may adversely affect the administrative exigency.

3.

The issue regarding implementation of transfer order has been considered by this Court in the case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2015(4) C.G.L.J.182, wherein relying upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been held by this Court that once the employee has been transferred, it is required to be complied with unless it is modified, varied or cancelled.

4.

Therefore, in these circumstances, either the transfer order has to be implemented or the State has the option to cancel, vary or modify or keep in abeyance.

5.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the direction that if the transfer order of the petitioner is not cancelled, varied or kept in abeyance by the respondent-Transferring Authority, the petitioner would be required to be relieved towards implementation, execution of the transfer order.

6.

The petition is accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra