Dr. Hari Ram Ogare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6625 of 2017 • Dr. Hari Ram Ogare S/o Late Shri Narayan Das Ogare, Aged About 48 Years By Occupation Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Nawapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Under Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - III , Ground Floor, Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Dr. A.K. Shukla, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Development Block Bera, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondents/State Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/12/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21.11.2017 by which he has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital

Nawapara, District Raipur to Arbtificial Insemination Hospital Centre, Kanker, District Kanker on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without obtaining their being any administrative exigency and as such, the same is in violation of the transfer policy issued by the State Government.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

7. 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 Akhilesh