Harishankar Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.4255 of 2016 • Harishankar Dewangan S/o Late G.R. Dewangan, Aged About 48 Years Assistant Grade Il, Katekalyan Thana & Tahsil Katekalyan, Distirct Dantewada Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh

3. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar, Katekalyan, Distirct Dantewada Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri D. R. Minz, Dy.GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 31/08/2016 Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though, he has been transferred vide order dated 31-07-2016 from Dantewada to Bastar, but he has not been relieved. It is submitted that the present policy dated 11.06.2016 does not prohibit relieving on the ground that reliever has not come because it is not a case of transfer from scheduled area to non-scheduled area but transfer from scheduled area to scheduled area only.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is posted at a sensitive place in core scheduled area and if the reliever of the petitioner has not come, relieving of the petitioner may adversely affect the administrative exigency. 4.

At the first place, the policy, which requires that the Government servant of

scheduled area shall not be relieved till reliever has not joined, is applicable only in the case where the transfer is from the scheduled area to a non scheduled area as clearly provided in clause 2.6 of policy dated 11.06.2016. 5.

The issue regarding implementation of transfer order, has been considered by this Court in the case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2015(4) C.G.L.J.182, wherein relying upon several judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been held by this Court that once the employee has been transferred, it is required to be complied with unless it is modified, varied or cancelled. 6.

Therefore, in these circumstances, either the transfer order has to be implemented or the State has the option to cancel, vary or modify or keep in abeyance. 7.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the direction that if the transfer order of the petitioner is not cancelled, varied or kept in abeyance by the respondentTransferring Authority, the petitioner would be required to be relieved towards implementation, execution of the transfer order. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane