Smt. Sumaro Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 9934 of 2019 • Smt. Sumaro Singh, W/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Working As Rural Health Officer, (Female), Sub Health Center, Amadad (Khadgawan), District Korea Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

5. The Transfer Examination Committee, Government of Chhattisgarh, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent-State Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. GA Hon'ble Justice Shri Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 29/11/2019 1.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred from Sub Health Centre, Amadad (Khadgawan) to Primary Health Centre, Kunwarpur (Janakpur) on administrative ground. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has preferred a representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is

disabled and is also a government employee. He is stationed at Family Welfare Department, Khadgawan, therefore, the husband and wife may be kept under one place.

3.

It is further contended that the petitioner has also two minor children, therefore, transfer at a place of 150 kms would be too harsh and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 4.

I have perused the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee and all the arguments, which have been raised by the petitioner, have been considered. The Grievance Redressal Committee has specifically recorded that the transfer do not flout any of the policy of the transfer.

5.

Further, the transfer being an incident of service, unless and until it is malafide or illegal on the face of it, the transfer do not call for any interference, much less the transfer order has been passed on 12.07.2019 and the petition being preferred after a considerable period of more than 4 moths also dilutes the cause. 6.

For the foregoing, I am not inclined to admit this petition. It fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Nirala