^ ^oo^a'b _„.„. •R- :":^^5@:^y4/' ^f' 'resente-l^ :f^-p>^";;^^,^....... • lated...-"^-'-'"" f- G* ^ :>'""^" CT THE m®HCOURT OF CHHATTI8&ARH AT BU.A8FUR '•^~\ Writ Petition SoA^35> /3006 sssgs'iUcc.t, yfcs" i^B H6-NIJ PETITIOWER ^c Sint. Chaadrakala Dhruv, W/o Shri Om. Prakash Tha'wait, aged about 48 years, Occupatioa- Service, pressutly posted as Tahsildar, Pamgarh, R/ o Tahaildar'a Quarter, Pamgarh Diatrict- Janjgir Chatupa. Versus - RESPONDEN1S : 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, « Through. Seoretary, Departmeut of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^% 2. CoUector, Disteict- Jaajgir Cham.pa (C.G.). 3. Shri Manohar Ram Qaikwad, Talistldflr, Bilaspur (C.G.), WRJT PBTITOB UHDKR ARTICLB 336/337 0V THE COBS'HTUTIOH OF IRDIA FOR I8SUAMCE Or A WSIT OF CB»TIOSAKl OB ASY OTHER APPSOPmATB WRIT OR DIRECTIOII TO DO JUSTICE tV THB MATTBai. .CUE ?•o WMT PETITION No.3339 of 2006 Sint. Chandrakala Dhruv w/o Shri Om. Prakash Thawait, aged about 48 years, Occupation-Service, presently posted as Tab.sUdar, Panigarh, R/o Talisildar's Quarter, Paiugarh, District-Jaajgir Champa Versus 1. State of Chliattisgarli, Through Secrctaiy, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawaii Raipur, (Chliattisgarh) 2. CoUector, District- Janjgir Champa(CG) 3. Shri Manohar Ram Gaikwad, Tahsildar, Bilaspur(CG) Writ Petitioa nnder Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution^f India Shri I.S. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Sbri A.S.Kachhawafaa, Goverrunent Advocate for the State/ lespondents No.l & 2. Shri V.S.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. QRAL QRDER (30.08.2007) Heard fiiiaUy wifh the consent ofthe pardes. The petitioner, who is presenfly working on fhe post of Talisildar, Pamgarh, has filed fhis petition being aggrieved wifh the order dated 8.6.2006(Annexure P-4], passed by the GoverDinent, by which, respondent No.3, who was workiag on the post ofTahsildar, Bilaspur, has been traasferred to Pamgarh, District- Janjgir ia fhe capacity of Tahsildar, whereas, there was no order iu relation to transfer of fhe petitioner. When this inatter came iuto notice of respondent No.2, CoUector, district-Jaujgir Champa, he iuvited the attention. of fhe Goverrunent by sending a meino dated 1.7.2006 W.P.No.3339/2006 (Annexure P-6) and when no action was taken on fhe aforesaid laeino, fhe CoUector himself inade aa interaat arrangeinent by passing another order dated 5.7.2006(Aanexure P-7), whereby fhe petitioner was directed to be posted as Additional Tahsildar, Sheoriiiarayan and respondent No.3 waa directed fo be posted as Tahsildar, Pamgarh. It is at ttus stage, fhe petitioner had filed fhe writ petition. Whfle entertamiug this writ petition on 10.7.2006, ttus Court stayed fhe eflect aad operation of fhe 2 impugned orders i.e. dated 8.6.2006(Annexure P-4) aud 5.7.2006 (Annexiu-e P-7), whereby, the petitioner was directed to work as Additional Tahsildar, Slieorinarayaa aad respondent No.3 was directed to work as Tahsildar, Pamgarh. Retum has been filed on behaifofthe State/respondents No. 1 & 2. No retura has been filed on behalt'ofrespondent No.3. It is contended by respondents No. 1 & 2 fhat ia fact, the petitidner haa not been transferred, but her place of posting has been chaaged. Tliey have also coutented fhat postiag of an employee does not necessarily mean ttiat he has been transterred soraewhere else and fhe posting only amounts to distribution of work betroeen 2 or niore persoas posted at tiie saine place, therefore, ffaere is no iaiBrmity in. fhe order dated 5.7.2006(Annexure P-7), passed by the Collector. Learaed cbunsel for fhe petitioner argues tfaat admittedly, fhe petitioner is senior to respondent No.3. Pirstly, fhe order of respondent No.3, postmg him as Tahsiidar ia place offhe petitioner, itself is a ^vrong order because there was no order of traiisfer for fhe petitioner. He secondly argues fhat if respondent No.3 coines as Tahsfldar, Pamgarh and tfae petitioner goes as Additional Tahsildar, SIieorinarayaii, it wffl go against ttte convention because it is always to be kept ia mind that fhe luain post is held by the senior and fhe Additional posts are held by the jiuuors to him/Iier ia the cadre. sunita 3 W.P.No.3339/2006 7^ f: Agaiast fhe said argument, raised by learaed counsel for flie petitiouer, leamed coiuisel for fhe State argues that it is fhe discretion wifh the State that if 2 persons are posted at one place, fhen who shoiild toe given a particular charge. So far as leamed counsel for respondent No.3 is concemed, Iie subinits fhat presently respondent No.3 is workiug at Bilaspur and he has no grievaace if the order of traasfer is set aside or quaslied by this Court. After heaiing the ai'guments of leamed counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion fhat if respondent No.3 was to be traasferred as Tahsfldar Pamgai'h, theu there should have been an order of traaster for fhe petitioner also, as two persons carmot be posted on the same post at one p]ace. Siace fhere was no order oftransfer oftlie petitioner and even after bringing fhis fact to the notice of fhe State by fhe concemed CoUector, fhe State did not take aay action to rectiiy fhe irregularity, order dated 8.6.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by fhe Govercunent, which itself suffers with such irregularity, caanot be sustamed. The order is quashed on the said count alone. Siace respondent No.3 has not joined at Paiugarh or at any other place in fhe said Tehsil, fliere is no necessity of passing aay order iu relatidn to fhe impugned oitler issued by fhe CoUector on 5.7.2006 (Annexure P- 7). In fhe result, fhe petition is allowed. The order dated 8.6.2006(Aanexure P-4), transferring respondent No.3 iu place of the petitiouer, without passiug any onler in K;latioii to fhe petitioner, is hereby quashed aad set aside. No costs. ! Sd<- Sunil Kumar Sinha ! Judge ^ K v ..fc-5? / - i