Anjali Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6015 of 2017 • Anjali Sahu D/o I. P. Sahu, Aged About 24 Years Presently Working as Sub Engineer, Municipal Council Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhavan Manatralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Under Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Sudeep Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 13/11/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.10.2017, by which, the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Council, Katghora to Nagar Panchayat, Churikala.

(3) The grounds raised by the petitioner are that she was appointed as Sub-Engineer by the Municipal Council, Katghora (her parent

department) and by transferring the petitioner to Nagar Panchayat, Churikala, the State Government has violated its own Policy as there is a policy decision to post the employees in their parent Municipality. Further, the petitioner, who is under probation period, has been transferred without any administrative exigency. (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