^ :'; q ^(T4^ ..^ IN THE HONajHABLE HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P, N0,_;^£;^0 /03 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT10li_OE_INDlA 0J^/W ABTICLE 2f7 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE PF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBIJ1CN AI^D OTHER SUITABLE WHIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, PETITXONBR ^'•^'^" ^•^^ "^ .^^>:^-'' ••^^^-"" ^ ^ .<' ^ ^0^ RESPONDBNT V2BSUS / Enc. SaUecte Kumar Cheybey S/Q» Stei B«L« CM»ybey , AQ«<^ 52 y<a3Es, Ayyrved Me^i€@l ©ffie®i?/Disiri@t Ayya?ve<d Officcs, £^stt, Seiatb Bastay (Dai^tewa^la) C»Q» ! 1) TN® State •I Ctoatyi®sa3?te Threugte, tiac.Uneler See.cetary. - Ministry of Healt^ an<d Paally , Welfare, Depariaent &,K«S« Bteavan , Aaipyr (C. G»)• 2) Dr, G.S. Mabalwar, S/0. " Not kn@wn " ' Age ateeui 52 years , Ayurved Me<Eli©alOffieer G®vt«Ayyrvedie H@spital , Bteeji Distt. Dantewada (C^G^), & > "I ./ ^ ^<. HI@H COURT OF JUDIC^TURE CHH^TTIS^RH: BIL^SPUR (€.6.} SIN<SLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BH4DOO.J WRIT PEUTCON N0.2560 OF 2003 O R D ER POST IT FOR: >^ /OS/2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge c^ ':s^\ yi©HCOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS^RH: BIL^SPUR (C.Q.\ SINB.E BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO.J WRIT PEUTION N0.2560 OF 2003 r- ^r—^^: br. Satish kumar Choubey Son of Shri B.L. Choubey, aged 52 years, Ayurved AAedicai Officer/District Ayurved Officer, District South Bastar (DantewadG) C.G. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Throughi Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) and another. Present: Shri R.N. Jha counsel for the petitjoner, Shri C.P, Jangade, &A., for the State/respondent. O R & ER (Pesssd on 27th of ^u§ust2003) By thi^ writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13/08/2003 (Annexure-P/1) by which the petitioner has again been posted as Ayurved MedicGi Officer at his originai piace of posting namely Govemment Ayurved Hospitai, Naimed, district Dantewada. ••>. (2) According to the petitioner/ he was posted as Ayurved Medical Officer, &ovemment Ayurved Dispensary, Naimed, district bantewada tilt 26/08/2002 and vide order dated 26/08/2002 (Annexure-P/2) he WQS posted as Incharge Superintendent-cum-District Ayurved OfficeryDatnewada. It is submitted that in G very clandestine manner respondent No/1 has passed the impugned order declaring the ..,.._. , f" ^' postlng of respondent No.2 in place of the petitioner as Incharge Superintendent-cum-Di^trict Ayurved Officer/ Dantewada. The said order has not been seryed on the petitioner, Respondent No.2 by exertjng pressure has become succes^ful to manage a copy of the impugned order and has handed over to the petitioner putting the petitioner under shock. The service^ of the petitioner to the welfare of the people in the fie!d of Ayurved Dispensaries under the control of respondent No,l has ail along been ioyal and piou^ having no biots on his career. Wherea^ respondent No,2 never performed his duties with devotion and sincerity and he used to remain absent, As such/ about his presence the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has not issued required certificate, That is why he has not been paid his salary by the petitioner, There is no complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner has compteted oniy one year tenure at his present p!ace of posting, The transfer of the petitioner is mala fide, unwarranted and unreasonable. Therefore, the transfer order may be quashed and as cn interim measure it may be stayed. (3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. (4) LeGrned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that within a period of one year the petitioner has been transferred back to Ndmed fromwhere he WGS transferred to the present place of posting, without giving him any opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has always been sincere and devoted to his duties and respondent No.2 who has been posted at the place of posting of the petitioner has never been sincere to his duties. Respondent No,2 is presentiy posted as Ayurved AAedicai Officer, &ovt, Ayurved Dispensary, Bheji Gt this piace he never performed his duties with sincerity and on account of that he has not been paid six months salary, AAoreover/ there WQS a Eot of compldnt against respondent No.2 and those complaints were forwarded to the Contro!ier, Indian AAedical System and Homeopathy, ^-"""•^:^::^ Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the respondent No,2 was working under the petitioner and now he has been posted in place of the petitioner. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is Qllowed to make a detdled representation to respondent No,l raising all his grievances which have been put forward by the counsef for the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner has been transferred with a $hort span of time which is penai in nature and that the record of re^pondent No.2 is not good. Ten days' time is aliowed to the petitioner to make a detaifed representation to the State/respondent, On receiving the representation of the petitioner the State/respondent shall consider the same in an objective manner considering aii grieyances of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the representation. The impugned transfer order shai! remain kept in abeyance tiIE the finai order is pas^ed by the State/respondent on the representation of the petitioner< (6) With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge -^" ^