P.L. Tirpude Prahlad Tirpude v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4222 of 2016 • P.L. Tirpude (Prahlad Tirpude) S/o Late Shri Tularam Tirpude, Aged About 61 Years Posted As Food Inspector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

3. Ms Vasudha Gupta, Posted As Food Inspector, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State / Respondent :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Nos. 1 & 2 on advance copy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 05/09/2016 Heard.

1.

The transfer order is challenged firstly on the ground that the petitioner, who is suffering from certain Neurological Disorders and receiving treatment, is transferred from Mahasamund to Gariyaband, which may adversely effect the treatment which he is getting by frequent visits to Raipur. The other ground of challenge is that the petitioner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.3.

2.

In so far as ground of malafide accommodation is concerned, considering that the petitioner has remained posted at Mahasamund for last four years, transfer of the petitioner and adjustment of respondent No.3 cannot be said to be malafide accommodation.

3.

So far as other ground of illness is concerned, it is found that his certificate of fitness has been issued way back in the year 2004 by

a neuro consultant. But, now the petitioner has place on record, a certificate issued by a Laparoscopic Surgeon, which contains certain prescriptions of medicine without there being any opinion, which can be appreciated by the transferring authority and not by the Court.

4.

The petitioner has already preferred a representation. The same shall be considered and decided by the State within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra