Anuradha Arya v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.21 16:50:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:17595-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 248 of 2025 Anuradha Arya D/o Parshuram Arya Aged About 45 Years R/o A-26, Shashi Memorial Nursing Home, Rajkishore Nagar, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur Presently Posted As Child Department Project Officer, Project Officer - Takhatpur-2, Sakri, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Upper Secretary Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commisison F-76, Section-19 Kotara Bhantha, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Secretary 5 - The Collector Bilaspur-Cum-District Election Officer, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - The Project Officer Takhatpur (Sakari), District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
7 - Ms. Jyoti Tiwari Child Development Officer, Government Girls Hostel, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G., Mr. S.S. Marhas and Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State, Mr. S.S. Marhas and Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for respective respondents. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 8024 of 2024 (Anuradha Arya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which, the learned
Decision
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Child Development Project Officer as per the recruitment conducted by the CGPSC, 2008. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has been transferred way back in 2019 to Kondagaon i.e. a naxalite effected scheduled area, thereafter, on 09.06.2022, the writ petitioner has been transferred from 3 Kondagaon to present place of posting i.e. Project Officer, Sakri, District-Bilaspur. Since 2022 the writ petitioner has remained posted at Sakri, Takhatpur until recently when the impugned order dated 29.11.2024. She has been illegally transferred from Sakri, Takhatpur to far of place Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur allegedly on administrative grounds. In the present case, the writ petitioner has already been appointed as a Assistant Returning Officer in the upcoming panchayat election by the District Election Officer on 25.11.2024. Thus, the writ petitioner has been transferred without the permission of the Election Commission and would hamper the important election work assigned to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred WPS No. 8024 of 2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2025. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in fact and law by dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant and ought to have appreciated that apart from the grounds of Election Duty, the respondents had no reply in respect of the other genuine grounds raised by the appellant and also consider that the facts of the case clearly reveal that all these years, the respondent No. 7 has been accommodated somehow in Bilaspur Region and even the impugned order was issued accommodating the respondent No. 7 in Bilaspur Region, therefore, the appellant was not transferred on account of any real administrative exigency. Further, the learned Single Judge ought to 4 have considered that the appellant herein was suffering from Menorrhagia and other medical problems and was undergoing treatment at Bilaspur which was also not disputed by the respondents. The appellant had already served in Naxal Affected Areas recently and the appellant was a Divorcee, has an old aged father to look after in Bilaspur after the recent death of her mother and transferring again to far of Naxal Area was clear injustice. The appellant had raised her grievance/ representation before the respondents which was liable to be considered properly by the State Authorities. In the instant case, the appellant herein had represented fairly before authorities to accommodate her at any nearby place also so that she can undergo proper treatment and also look after her father. The learned Single Judge committed error while failing to appreciate that in identical cases, the grievance of the Public Servants was directed to be considered by the Transfer Committee at the state level by the respondents. The appellant's case ought to have been relegated before the committee for a proper decision. The transfer of the appellant to far of place l.e. Ramanujnagar, Surajpur is resulting into grave injustice to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ 5 petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that the transfer is an exigency of service and the writ petitioner being a government servant cannot escape from being transferred by the department in view of the requirement and administrative exigency arising from time to time. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet