YOGENDRA KUMAR SONTEKE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Chhattisgarh judgment dated 2020-10-28. YOGENDRA KUMAR SONTEKE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4293 of 2020 • Yogendra Kumar Sonteke S/o Late Lal Das Sonteke Aged About 46 Years Working As Pharmacist Ayurved, Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Kumhar-Sadra, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Deputy Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The District Ayurved Medical Officer District- Bastar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G. A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 28. 10. 2020 Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Kumhar-Sadra, District Bastar to Primary Health Center, Kutru, District Bijapur.
He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2013 and posted at Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Kumhar-Sadra, District Bastar and he has already served for more than 7 years at Kumhar-Sadra, District Bastar, which is a scheduled area and again the petitioner has been transferred to core-scheduled area i. e. Bijapur. He would further submit that the instant transfer is against the transfer policy of the State, which mandates that after rendering services in the scheduled area, the person is required to be posted outside the scheduled area, whereas the petitioner has again been posted in the core-scheduled area, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner may be canceled. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. Clause 1.
3 of the transfer policy reads as under :- "1-3 izFke fu;qfDr ds le; vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks nqxZe vuqlwfpr {ks= esa de ls de nks o"kZ ds fy, vFkok lkekU; vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa ds vU; ftyksa@ fodkl[k. Mksa esa de ls de rhu o"kZ ds fy, inLFk fd;k tk,A fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds i'pkr~ mudk LFkkukarj. k xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= esa fd;k tk,A muds LFkku ij vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh inLFkkiuk ds fy, iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk jksVs'ku iz. kkyh fu/kkZfjr dh tk,A ;fn vuqlwfpr {ks= esa inLFk dksbZ vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh fu/kkZfjr dk;Zdky iw. kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ Hkh ;Fkkor mlh LFkku ij inLFk jguk pkgs] rks mls fu/kkZfjr dk;Zdky dh lekfIr ds iwoZ bl laca/k esa vius foHkkxk/;{k ls fyf[kr esa vuqjks/k djuk gksxkA mlds vuqjks/k ij foHkkxk/;{k }kjk ;Fkksfpr fu. kZ; fy;k tk,xkA" 4. After perusal of the documents it appears that the petitioner has served for more than 7 years in the scheduled area, taking into such fact the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation before the respondent No.
2 within a period of three weeks from today against the transfer ventilating all the grievances and if such representation is filed, the respondent No. 2 in turn shall decide the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the transfer order dated 15. 09. 2020 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner shall not be given effect to. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti
Source: High Court of Chhattisgarh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.