Smt. Reena Vermasahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5637 of 2016 Smt. Reena Verma (Sahu) W/o Devendra Sahu, Aged About 26 Years Patwari P.H No 32, Village Murali R.I. Circle Hardi Bazar, Tehsil Palli, Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Korba, Distirct Korba Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh

4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hardi Bazar District Korba Chhattisgarh

5. Naib Tehsildar, Tahsil Hardi Bazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh

6. Abhishek Rathore, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Haradi Bazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/10/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.09.2016 by which the petitioner has, for the time being, attached in Tahsil office of Pali. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while working as Patwari Halka No.32, Village Murali, Tahsil-Hardi Bazar, the petitioner submitted a complaint on 14.09.2016 before the Collector that she is being

-2subjected to harassment by Naib Tahsildar of Hardi Bazar. It is submitted that instead of taking action against the Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner has been shifted.

3.

After going through the material on record, complaint of the petitioner, I find that the moment petitioner submitted representation on 14.09.2016, immediately, steps have been taken to shift the petitioner in another office so that the petitioner may not be subjected to any subordination by the Naib Tahsildar against which the petitioner has made complaint. Therefore, at this stage, there appears to be no reason for this Court to interfere with the arrangement made for the time being. In fact, by this arrangement, the petitioner has been brought out from the jurisdiction of the person against whom the petitioner is making allegation of harassment. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been attached without posting her in any Patwari Halka. Considering that immediately taking note of the complaint made on 14.09.2016, the petitioner has been immediately shifted by an order passed by Tahsildar on that very day, at this stage, all that can be observed is that it will be open for the competent authority to consider petitioner's posting in any other Patwari Halka in exigency of service ensuring that the petitioner is not subjected to subordination of the officer against whom the petitioner has made complaint. 5.

With the said observation, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha