Rajesh Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3193 of 2018 Rajesh Tiwari S/o Late Shiv Shankar Tiwari, aged about 56 years, R/o Aamaguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Engineering In Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Shihava Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

5. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Block 01 Dantewada, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/04/2018 1.

In the present Writ Petition, the services of the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12/02/2015 while he was working with the respondents at Jagdalpur. Subsequently, vide order dated 16/06/2016, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was posted at the Sub Block, Dantewada. Lateron, the petitioner has been transferred from Dantewada to Jagdalpur vide order dated 14/08/2017 and the petitioner immediately gave his joining on transfering the petitioner from Dantewada to Jagdalpur.

Subsequently, the order of transfer was canceled vide order dated 09/02/2018. Pursuant to the cancellation of the transfer order, the petitioner again reported for duties at Sub Block Dantewada immediately and though he has been granted joining, the petitioner has not been given the charge of an Assistant Engineer.

2.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though the order of transfer has been canceled and he has reported for duties at Dantewada, the respondent No.5 is not providing the charge to the petitioner. 3.

Given the said factual matrix of the case this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents No. 3 & 4 to look into the grievance of the petitioner which he has raised by way of representation dated 14/03/2018 and an appropriate decision be taken on the said representation preferable within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4.

It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the respondent No.3 & 4 the order passed by this Court. 5.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE