Maya Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh), whereby the writ petition filed by the app
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22350-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 306 of 2025 Maya Anchal W/o Shri Umashankar Lahre D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Anchal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Parsada Post Police Station And Tahsil Masturi District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Dr. Jayanti Dewangan Tehsildar Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Shri Rajendra Bharat Tahsildar Korba District - Korba (C.G.) (Respondents No. 1to 4 Were Respondents In Writ Petition ) ... Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 :Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate /State
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP 2 8370 of 2024 (Maya Anchal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts ‘necessary for disposal of this appeal’ are that the appellant was initially appointed as Nayab Tehsildar and was posted at Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. on 05.08.2016. On 14.08.2018, she was posted as In Charge Tahsildar Dharamjaigarh from Tahsil, Raigarh, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2018, the name of the appellant appears at serial No. 7. Thereafter, on 28.01.2019, she was posted at Tahsil, Raigarh from Tahsil, Dharamjaigarh, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2019, her name appears at serial No. 2. Thereafter on 06.03.2019, she was posted at Tahsil, Pusaur from Tahsil, Raigarh, C.G. Thereafter on 18.11.2021, she was posted as Tahsildar, Tamnar from Tahsil Pusaur, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2021, her name appears at serial No. 3. Thereafter on 14.07.2022, she was posted at Land Records Branch Raigarh from Tahsil Tamnar, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022, her name appears at serial No.1. Thereafter on 30.09.2022, the services of the petitioner were transferred from District, Raigarh to District, Bilaspur, C.G. on administrative grounds. In the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2022, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 15. Thereafter petitioner has joined her services at the transferred place of posting i.e. District- Bilaspur pursuant to the transfer order dated 30.09.2022. Thereafter vide order dated 3 15.11.2022, the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar Sipat, District- Bilaspur. Thereafter on 15.12.2023 the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar Pachpedhi, District- Bilaspur by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, vide impugned transfer order dated 13.09.2024, the services of the petitioner were transferred from District Bilaspur to District Uttar Bastar Kanker, CG. on administrative grounds. In the aforesaid order dated 13.09.2024, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 24. Aggrieved with the transfer order dated 13.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 1 ventilating her grievances and praying that looking at the personal difficulties faced by her and recent frequent transfers; her transfer order may kindly be modified/altered considering his representation sympathetically, but the same was rejected on the ground that the transfer was made on account of administrative exigency. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPS No.8370 of 2024 and the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant, who is holding the post of Tehsildar and is presently posted at Tehsil- Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, has been transferred to District- North Bastar Kanker vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P/12). It is submitted that the petitioner is a 4 victim of frequent transfers. It is also stated that, against the order impugned, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6043/2024, wherein the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and in turn, the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation but same was rejected on the ground that the transfer was made on account of administrative exigency. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the
Decision
aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that vide transfer order dated 13.09.2024 the appellant has been transferred from District- Bilaspur to District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. In the first round of litigation the appellant has questioned the transfer order dated 13.09.2024 in WPS No. 6043/2024. Vide order dated 26.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 6043/2024, learned Single Judge of this Court had directed 5 the appellant to file an appropriate representation before the concerned authorities and, in turn, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the case of the appellant within a period of four weeks and to pass appropriate orders on her representation. The representation filed by the appellant was considered and thereafter in a thoughtful consideration of representation has been rejected by the Additional Secretary stating that the transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency and if the appellant seeks any Child Care Leave then she should file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities. It further transpires that the transfer order has been passed not only for the appellant but by the same transfer order about 49 Tahsildars have been transferred on administrative exigency and that too considering the fact that in the Scheduled area there are requirements of Tahsildars, there is paucity of Tahsildars and they are required to be posted and accordingly on the basis of such order the Collector, District-Bilaspur has also passed an order relieving the petitioner to join at her transfered place i.e. District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker. 8. So far as grounds raised by the petitioner regarding frequent transfer is concerned upon perusal of the transfer order it seems that since 2016 the petitioner has been posted in District- Raigarh. Since year 2016 to year 2022 the appellant has been posted at District- Raigarh and thereafter since year 2022 to year 2024 she was post at District- Bilaspur and as such it cannot be said that 6 she is victim of frequent transfer. The other grounds raised by the appellant that the fundamental rights have been violated in passing transfer order does not appeal to this Court. The appellant cannot say that there is no administrative exigency in transferring her. The representation of the appellant has been taken with due care and reasoned order has been passed on her representation and it was further in the said representation it has been stated that if the appellant seeks Child Care Leave she may file appropriate application before the concerned authorities and as such, considering the over all aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Bini