Smt. Sheela Bara v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6500 of 2018 Smt. Sheela Bara W/o Dr. Ravindra Tigga, Aged About 42 Years, Working As- Sub Inspector In The Office Of District- Excise Office Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Fundurdihari Beechpara Ward No. 8 Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Deparment Of Commercial Tax (Excise) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Commissioner, Office Of Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Surajpur, Office Of Collectorate Surajpur DistrictSurajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

4. District Excise Officer, Surajpur, Office At Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate For State :

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 28.09.2018 The grievance of the petitioner is the order of transfer dated 14.09.2018 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Surajpur to Balrampur.

2.

The petitioner has been at the present place of posting i.e. Surajpur since 14.02.2014 i.e. well over 4 1⁄2 years. Grievance of the petitioner is that the said impugned order has been passed on a wrong information

provided by the concerned respondent in as much as the home town of the petitioner has been reflected as Ambikapur/Surguja whereas her actual home town is Jashpur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the proposal was for transferring the petitioner from Surajpur to Ambikapur but subsequently the place of posting was amended and in stead of Ambikapur the petitioner has been sent to Balrampur only on the ground of wrong information given by the concerned authority so far as her home town is concerned.

3.

These are all matters which have to be looked into on the administrative side by the Authorities in the Department and these are not the issues which could be dealt with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, let the petitioner make a representation to the authority concerned in addition to any representation she has already made at the earliest and on such representation being made, the authority concerned would scrutinize the same particularly in respect of the home town of the petitioner and necessary correction if required be made and would also consider her request for posting at Surguja.

5.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola