BHAGIRATHI UPADHYAY 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 2020-11-04. BHAGIRATHI UPADHYAY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4319 of 2020 • Bhagirathi Upadhyay S/o Late Shri Bhekhram Upadhyay Aged About 60 Years Occupation Assistant Grade II, Office Of The Deputy Director, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Public Health Engineering And Village Industries Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan,Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Village Industries (Sericulture Department), Indravati Bhawan, Block No-01, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Deputy Director Sericulture Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001 4. The Assistant Director Sericulture Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Pin-497220 5. Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta Occupation Assistant Grade II, C/o Office Of The Assistant Director Sericulture Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Pin-497220 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy.
G. A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 04. 11. 2020 Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by order dated 29. 09. 2020 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner was promoted and posted from Raigarh to Janjgir. He would further submit that as per Clause 2. 2 of the the policy of the State dated 27. 05. 2020 (Annexure P-3) it has been resolved that in case of promotion if the person is effected as far as possible he should be upgraded and posted at the same place. 2. Clause 2. 2 of the policy reads as under:- 2-2 inksUufr & foHkkx }kjk fu;fer inksUufr esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;k tk,A fdUrq inksUufr ds ifj. kke Lo:i gksus okys LFkkukarj. k dks jksdus gsrq ;Fkk laHko ml in dks mlh LFkku ij vkxkeh vkns'k rd vLFkk;h rkSj ij mUu;u (UPGRADE) dj fn;k tk,A inksUufr@dzeksUufr ds QyLo:i ns; ,fj;lZ jkf'k ds Hkqxrku dks foRr foHkkx ds vkxkeh vkns'k rd foyafcr j[kk tk,A 3.
Therefore, the petitioner prays that he should not be transferred and he may be given the liberty to make a representation to Respondent No. 2 which may be decided within a stipulated time. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the argument and would submit according to Clause 3 of the promotion order Annexure P-1, if the person do not take the charge within 30 days it would be deemed that he is abandoned the promotion. 5. Clause 3 of the promotion order (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- 3@ lacaf/kr deZpkjh }kjk 30 fnol ds Hkhrj inksUur in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg. k ugha fd;k tkrk gS] vFkok fdlh dkj. kksa ls inksUufr ifjR;kx djrk gS rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh ds fy, ;g vkns'k Loeso fujLr ekuk tkosxk] rFkk p;u lwph ls dfu"B deZpkjh dks inksUur djus ij fopkj fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh ;fn lacaf/kr deZpkjh }kjk inksUufr badkj ds fy, izLrqr fd, x, dkj. k iq"V ,oa larks"ktud u gks rks vkns'k dk ikyu djus ls badkj ds fy, lacaf/kr ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk ldsxhA 6. Perused the documents. 7.
Perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that on being promoted, the place of posting was changed from Raigarh to Janjgir. 8. Considering the fact that petitioner has already preferred a representation dated 01. 10. 2020, without any observation on the merits, the Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the 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.