← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5739/2017disposed off

Anand Kewal Mishra v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

2017-11-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5739 of 2017 • Anand Kewal Mishra S/o Harshul Mishra Aged 58 Years, Working As OfÏcer Grade - 2 , At Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman Head OfÏce Sunder Nagar Daganiya Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional OfÏce Sunder Nagar, Daganiya Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 2/11/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.9.2017, by which, he has been transferred from Branch Dharsiwa to Branch Bilaigarh.

(3) The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any administrative exigency. The petitioner is suffering from spine disease and he is also going to attain the age of superannuation after 3 years. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy.

(4) Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.

(5) Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 04 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(6) For a period of 12 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained.

(7) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (8) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna