S. R. Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6899 of 2019 S. R. Thakur S/o Late Shri Kani Ram Thakur, Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted And Working Deputy Superintendent Of Jail, Office At District Jail Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ( Attached To Sub Jail Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department ( Jail ) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Home Department ( Jail ) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Director General Of Jail And Corrective Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Shyam Lal Jangade, Assistant Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Attached To Sub Jail Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05.09.2019

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order Annexure P1 dated 23.08.2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Jail Dhamtari to District Jail Jashpur.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has got only 1 1⁄2 years of service left for superannuation. At this juncture, of his service career he should not be sent to so far an area. Further

-2contention of the petitioner is that it was recently that petitioner was attached to the sub Jail, Katghora in June, 2019 and having worked there for about two months now again he has been shifted. If at all, if the respondents intended to transfer, the respondents could have considered transferring the petitioner substantively at Katghora where the petitioner has already worked for last two months on attachment instead of jashpur.

3. Given the fact, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 within a period of 10 days from today and respondent No.1 in turn shall decide the same within a period of 45 days. While considering the representation the authorities would consider whether the petitioner can be accommodated at the place where he was attached since June, 2019 itself by way of regular transfer.

4. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the effect and operation of the impugned order Annexure P-1 shall remain stayed.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present Writ Petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit