High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6013/2021disposed off

Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-10-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) NO.6013 of 2021 Deepak Kumar Sahu son of Chheduram Sahu, aged about 27 years, working as Constable, Narayanpur Jail, DistrictNarayanpur (CG) ----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (CG)

2. The Director General, Jail and Corrective Service Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG)

3. The Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (CG)

4. The Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail, Narayanpur, District-Narayanpur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 27/10/2021

1. Heard Mr.K.K.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents / State on the question of admission of this writ petition.

2. Mr.K.K.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is working as Constable in scheduled area for last more than 5 years, whereas after completing 5 years of service, he is entitled to be transferred from scheduled area to non-scheduled area as per policy dated 3.6.2015 (Annexure P-5), which has not been considered and decided by the respondents, as such,

the petitioner may be allowed to make a fresh representation qua transfer from scheduled area to nonscheduled area to respondent No.2, which may be directed to be considered and decided expeditiously.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State, would submit that if such a representation is filed, it will be considered and decided expeditiously.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is allowed to make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 would do well to consider and decide the same in the light of policy dated 3.6.2015 (Annexure P-5) within further 45 days from its receipt and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear this this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

5. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

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