High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2904/2020dismissed

Govind Das Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-07-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2904 of 2020 • Govind Das Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Dayaram Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Area Officer, Bhanuparatappur District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Bhanupratappur District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi Advocate For State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 22.07.2020

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 4-7-2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Forest Officer, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker whereby the service of the petitioner has been placed in the Range Office (Production) Bhanuprattapur from the Range Office,

Bhanupratappur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the change of office has been made by the respondent whereby the order of transfer dated 14-8-2017 has been amended and the petitioner was posted at Range Office, Bhanupratappur. It is further contended that the distance from one place to another place is 2 kms and because of Covid 19 pandemic spread, petitioner should not have been placed at the Range Office (Production). It is further contended that the petitioner has already made representation to the respondent authorities and the same may be directed to be decided.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the same and would submit that shifting from one office to other cannot be treated as transfer.

5. Perused impugned order dated 4-7-2020 (Annexure P/1) which shows that the petitioner has been placed from one place to other place i.e., from main office to production office, Bhanupratappur.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of order, this court cannot sit as a supervisory jurisdiction for a particular office and direct posting of particular person to a particular chair, unless it has been shown that the impugned order is malafide or against the statutory mandate warranting interference by this court.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju