Dr. Prem Narayan Gupta (Dr. P.N. Gupta) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8087 of 2019 Dr. Prem Narayan Gupta (Dr. P.N. Gupta) S/o Late Shri Sheoram Prakash Gupta Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Service, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Domani, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), R/o Quarter No. 616 M I G, Padmanabhpur, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Veterinary And Fisheries, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Department Of Veterinary, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Dy. Director, Department Of Veterinary, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. Dr. Mishra Chandraprakash Siyaram S/o Late Shri Siyaram Mishra, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Bhanupratapur, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. P.K.C. Tiwari Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, GA For Respondent/s :

Mr. Parag Kotech, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

03/10/2019

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order of transfer dated 22.08.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Durg to Kanker.

2. Contention of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already worked in the core scheduled area in the past for more than 5 years and thereafter he has been posted on the present place of posting and it is just about two years that petitioner is working on the present place and now he has being again transferred to another core scheduled area. Second ground of the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged around 60 years and as per the transfer policy of the State Government the employees/officers more than 55 years of age as far as possible avoided to be posted in the core scheduled area. Contrary of this, the petitioner is now being sent to a core scheduled area.

3. Given the facts and circumstances of the fact, let petitioner make a detailed representation to the State Government in addition to what if he has already made within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of the representation, the respondent No.1 shall decide the same within a period of 45 days. Status quo as it exists today be maintained.

4. Respondent No.4 on caveat enters appearance. He has also given his joining. Given the fact that respondent No.4 has also given his joining, it is expected that respondent No.1 shall take a decision at the earliest in accordance with the policy of the State Government.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of./- Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit