Dr. Sanjay Raj vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary And Anr

Heard.

This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner was transferred from Veterinary Hospital Kota, District Bilaspur to Veterinary Hospital, Pakhanjur, District Kanker. The same was subject of challenge before this Court in WPS No.6848 of 2019, wherein this Court on 05.09.2019 has passed the following order:-

"1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 22.08.2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Kota, District: Bilaspur to Veterinary Hospital, Pakhanjur, District: Kanker (C.G.).

The Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner in the past has worked for more than 6 years in schedule area i.e. from January, 2006 to February, 2012. During this time the petitioner was posted at District: Bastar and thereafter the petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting and vide the impugned order, he has again been sent to the scheduled area.

According to the petitioner, having served the department in a scheduled area for a period of more than 6 years in the past, the respondents ought not have posted the petitioner again in the scheduled area but should have posted the petitioner in a non-scheduled area.

Considering the facts of the case, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondent within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondent shall consider the same within a period of further 45 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, there shall be stay of the effect and operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed off."

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No.6848 of 2019 the petitioner had filed the representation and while dismissing the representation this aspect was not considered that the petitioner has already spent considerable time at Bastar, which is a scheduled area, therefore, the petitioner was posted at non- scheduled area and the State should have considered this aspect.

The factual aspect from the earlier order would reveal that the petitioner from 2006 to 2012 spent time in the scheduled area. Thereafter, after 2012 he was posted at Bilaspur which is a non-scheduled area.

Clause 2.1 of the transfer policy for posting in the core scheduled area and scheduled area reads as under:-

2.1 दुर्गम अनुसूचित क्षेत्र में कम से कम दो वर्ष अथवा सामान्य अनुसूचित क्षेत्र में तीन वर्ष तक पदस्थापना की जाए। अनुसूचित क्षेत्र में रिक्त पदांे की उपलब्धता एवं शासकीय सेवक द्वारा अनुसूचित क्षेत्र में की गई सेवा अवधि के अनुसार उसकी पदस्थापना गैरअनुसूचित क्षेत्र में करने पर विचार किया जाए।

Clause 1.6 of the transfer policy reads as under:-

1.6 अनुसूचित क्षेत्र में पदस्थापना के समय ऐसे अधिकारियों /कर्मचारियों को प्राथमिकता दी जाए जो पूर्व में अनुसूचित क्षेत्रों में पदस्थ न रहे हों या न्यूनतम अवधि के लिए पदस्थ रहे हों। यदि इस मापदंड के अनुसार पदस्थापना के लिए संवर्ग में चिन्हित अधिकारी/ कर्मचारी समान स्तर के हों तो यह विभाग पर निर्भर होगा कि वह उनमें से किसकी पदस्थापना करे।

Prima facie though there is no bar has been created that after the one has spent time in the scheduled area, he cannot be posted again in the scheduled area. The government has to harmonize this issue and the persons who are continuously posted in the non-scheduled area are required to be posted in the scheduled area as per policy of transfer so that all the employees may be treated equally. The representation (Annexure P-6) would show that the petitioner has categorically made a submission that he has already spent 6 years in the scheduled area, therefore, the others may be considered to be posted again in the scheduled area, who are not been posted. The rejection of the representation Annexure P-1 dated 05th of December, 2019, however, though the said submission was made and is reflected on record, it do not show that it has been considered while representation was decided the order only shows that the transfer do not breach any policy of transfer whereas the reading of the transfer policy shows that the persons who were already posted in the scheduled area instead of posting them again in the scheduled area, the persons who are not posted in the scheduled area may be considered. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Secretary, Department of Livestock Development to consider the representation of the petitioner again within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Till then the transfer order dated 22.08.2019 shall not be given effect to in respect of the petitioner, if it has not been carried out till date.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.