Shravan Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5661 of 2021 Shravan Paikra S/o Shri Netram Paikra Aged About 51 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Incharge Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Branch Batauli, Tahsil Batauli District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Mahamaya Road Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur Mahamaya Road Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

4. Sunil Chaturvedi Presently Posted As Branch Manager, Head Office Marketing Office, District Cooperative Cental Bank Ltd. Ambikapur, Mahamaya Road Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

5. The Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate.

For State/Res.1 & 5 :

Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate For Respondent no.2 & 3 :

Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/10/2021

1. Aggrieved of the order Annexure P-1 dated 21.09.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order the petitioner has been shifted from the post Branch manager, Batoli to In-charge Branch Manager, Kamleshwarpur.

3. According to the petitioner, the challenge is to the impugned order substantially is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. The petitioner was earlier posted at the Kamleshwarpur Branch itself as an Incharge Branch Manager from where on account of administrative

-2exigency the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 09.09.2021 to Branch Batoli as Branch Manager. In less than a fortnight time the petitioner has been shifted from Batoli to Kamleshwarpur again. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that he has been subjected to frequent transfers, particularly when the previous order of transfer dated 09.09.2021 has been acted upon by the petitioner.

4. Given the said facts of the case, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3 submits that let petitioner make an appropriate representation and his claim shall be considered on its own merits.

5. Given the submissions by the counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3, let petitioner make a detailed representation in respect of the impugned order of transfer dated 21.09.2021 within a period of seven days and respondent no.2 & 3 shall take an appropriate decision on the said representation within a period of 45 days.

6. Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, if the order of Annexure P-1 has not been acted upon, the respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner in terms of the Annexure P-1 till the representation of the petitioner is decided.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit