Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6616 of 2019 Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shyam Lal Yadav Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer In Office Of Sub Divisional Officer (Public Work Department) E / M Mahasamund District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Executive Engineer E / M, Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Officer E/m, Public Work Department Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 02/09/2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the order of transfer dated 16.08.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Mahasamund to Ramanujganj.

2. Only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been shown to have been sent to the Building and Construction Division whereas

the petitioner substantively belongs to the Electrical and Maintenance cadre and as such there is all likelihood of change of cadre and which may also adversely affect his promotional career.

3. State counsel at this juncture submits that petitioner since he is being sent to the present place of posting after more than 11 years of service at the present place of posting, the State Government would ensure that petitioner would be assigned the work only that of electrical and maintenance which is the post and cadre against which petitioner was substantively appointed. State counsel further submits that there should not be any apprehension on the part of the petitioner of loosing his seniority or promotional avenues as the order of transfer is made on the administrative exigency, the State Government is bound to protect the interest of the petitioner.

4. Given the aforesaid facts, let respondents take steps ensuring that only work is assigned to the petitioner against which the petitioner has been substantively appointed and working since then i.e. in the Electrical and Maintenance.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit