Nandu Ram Shori v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 216 of 2016 Nandu Ram Shori S/o Late Shri D.R. Shori, Aged About 61 Years 4 month R/o Village Bhirawahi, Post & Thana Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.

Judgment on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 28/04/2016 1.

I.A. No.1 of 2016 has been filed to condone delay of 47 days in preferring the appeal. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and the duration, delay is condoned.

2.

The present appeal assails order dated 20.1.2016 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No.2454 of 2015 declining to interfere with the order of transfer dated 4.6.2015 posting the Appellant from Kanker to Pathariya. In the writ petition, on 10.7.2015 the operation of the order of transfer had been stayed. Pursuant to the dismissal of writ petition, we are informed by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that he had since joined at Pathariya.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant makes a very limited submission that

today he has approximately eight months to go before his superannuation. The Government policy with regard to transfer and posting do contemplate preference in posting in the last year of service.

4.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that this ground was not raised before the Learned Single Judge. It is a question of fact on which he cannot make any submission without any instructions. It was lastly submitted that on the face of it when the order dated 4.6.2015 was issued, the Appellant clearly had more than one year of service left.

5.

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6.

If the Appellant has joined his transferred place of posting that by itself may not be sufficient to render the appeal infructuous in view of the Government policy sought to be relied upon in the changed circumstances. If the Appellant so desires, he may represent before the authorities which is expected to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law and not rendered infructuous by sheer passage of time. This observation cannot be construed as any opinion on merits of such representation that may be filed by the Appellant and which naturally has to be considered by the Respondents in their own administrative wisdom.

7.

The writ appeal is disposed with the aforesaid observation. Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu