Smt. Shweta Vaishnav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2517 of 2020 • Smt. Shweta Vaishnav W/o Shri Manoj Singh Aged About 35 Years Working As Patwari, P.H. No. 78 Village Temri, Dharampura, Tahsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector (Land Record Branch) Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Tahsildar, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Dharmendra Verma Working As Patwari, P.H. No. 68, Village Fundhar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/ State :

Shri Amrito Das, Addl A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 01/07/2020

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after suspension the petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari at Daganiya P.H.No. 58. Subsequently, by order dated 23.08.2019 she was transferred to village Bahesar, Chikhli P.H.No. 26. He further submits that again by order dated

13.03.2020, she was posted at village Kandul, Kathadih P.H.No. 83. Thereafter, she was relieved on 19.03.2020 to join P.H. NO. 83, however in the meanwhile the order was modified and she was asked to join at village Temri Dharampura P.H. No. 78 by order dated 15.05.2020. She joined at P.H. No. 78 on 22.05.2020 and again by order dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-1) she has been asked to join the Office of Tahsildar, Raipur.

3. Learned State counsel would submit that the transfer of petitioner from one halka number to other is within the same division and no prejudice has been caused.

4. Perused the document. Perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that the petitioner has been transferred from P. H No. 78 to office of Tahsildar, Raipur. Prima facie, it appears that it is within the same Tahsil. The arrangement and allocation in charge of patwari circle from one to another within same Tahsil and Divison can not be termed as a transfer. It appears to be one like allocation of office work from one to another. Therefore, in such circumstances no interference is called for by this Court. Further, considering the prayer made by the petitioner the petitioner is given the liberty to make a representation before the Collector which may be decided in accordance with law.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti