← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1443/2015disposed off

Praveen Kumar Pradhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2016-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(S) No.1443 Of 2015 Praveen Kumar Pradhan, son of Pitamber Pradhan, aged about 38 years, working on the post of Patwari, at Patwari Halka No.30, R.I.Circle Lakhanpur, District Surguja; resident of village Beldagi, post office & police station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) -----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, post office Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhttisgarh)

2. The Joint Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms Neha Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Mr.Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 13/01/2016 1.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed writ petition being WP(S) No.3408 of 2014 against his transfer from R.I. Circle, Lakjhanpur, District Surguja to Balrampur, in which this Court by order dated 23.7.2014 directed the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with para 6 of the transfer policy and take a decision in the matter. Thereafter, on 16.10.2014 the Committee constituted by this Court considered the case of the petitioner and made

recommendation in his favour, but by order dated 10.4.2015 the petitioner's representation has been rejected. 2.

Fact remains that this Court has directed for considering the representation of the petitioner in accordance with para 6 of the transfer policy and the Committee has also made recommendation in favour of the petitioner, but order rejecting representation is completely silent and no reason has been assigned while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It shows complete non-application of mind. When this Court has directed for consideration and the Committee has also made recommendation, the State Government ought to have passed the order assigning some reason in order to satisfy the Court that case has been considered in proper prospective, but same has not been done.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and order impugned dated 10.4.2015 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to the State Government for considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to provide copy of this order as well as copy of earlier order to the State Government within a period of two weeks from today. The State Government shall consider the case of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of further four weeks. Interim order dated 27.4.2015 shall remain in operation for further six weeks. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-